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 26, 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 26, 2009

- iv -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

   PAGE / PARA

PRESENTATION BY:

CBC / Radio-Canada   1155 / 6326

ADISQ   1246 / 6863

Shaw Rocket Fund   1300 / 7165

L'Alliance pour l'enfant et la télévision   1325 / 7318

Corus Entertainment Inc.   1347 / 7425

Gatineau, Quebec

--- Upon resuming on Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 0901

6321   LE PRÉSIDENT : OK, Madame la Secrétaire, nous sommes prêts.

6322   THE SECRETARY: Merci, Monsieur le Président.

6323   We will now proceed with presentation number 29 on the agenda, which is a presentation by CBC/Radio-Canada.

6324   Appearing for CBC/Radio-Canada is Steven Guiton.

6325   You may introduce your colleagues and then proceed with you 15-minute presentation.

PRESENTATION

6326   MR. GUITON : Thank you.

6327   Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I am Steven Guiton, Chief Regulatory Officer for CBC/Radio-Canada, and I am pleased to be here today with my colleagues, to offer our perspective on new media broadcasting in Canada.

6328   Before we begin, let me introduce the rest of our panel.

6329   To my left is Mr. Steve Billinger, Executive Director, Digital Programming and Business Development at CBC.

6330   To my right, Ms Geneviève Rossier, Directrice générale Internet et Services Numériques, Radio-Canada.

6331   To Ms Rossier's right is Mr. Rob Scarth, Director of Regulatory Affairs for CBC's English services, and to Mr. Billinger's left is Mr. Stan Staple, Director, Research and Strategic Analysis, for the Corporation.

6332   In the 10 years since your last review of new media broadcasting, many things have changed.

6333   The increase in broadband penetration and the growth of new digital consumer technologies have enabled consumers to access broadcast content on the internet with an ease that we might not have imagined 10 years ago.

6334   Ten years ago user-generated content was virtually unheard of, and the rise of social networking was not even contemplated.

6335   Now both of these developments represent a significant shift in how people use the Internet as a tool for self-expression and social interaction.

6336   At the same time, we are not seeing the wholesale replacement of traditional broadcasting by new media broadcasting that, 10 years ago, we might have thought would occur.

6337   Indeed, the emergence and success of new media broadcasting is directly proportional to the health and success of traditional broadcast media.

6338   Why is that?

6339   It is because new media broadcasting doesn't seem to be a replacement for traditional broadcasting.

6340   It is more of an extension of the attributes and overall value of traditional broadcasting.

6341   And new media is an area where broadcasters must have a presence since, like traditional platforms, it provides access to what Canadians really want?-which is broadcasting content.

6342   Geneviève and Steve will now provide you with a closer look at what this means for CBC/Radio-Canada, and the challenge it creates for us.

6343   Geneviève?

6344   MME ROSSIER : Merci Steve.

6345   Alors, CBC/Radio-Canada ne voit pas les nouvelles technologies comme une menace, mais plutôt comme une formidable occasion de diversifier ses contenus, créer un véritable engagement entre le diffuseur public et ses auditoires, et augmenter l'impact de notre programmation sur la démocratie canadienne.

6346   Plus que jamais auparavant, nous offrons accès à nos contenus sur toutes les plateformes.

6347   En fait, les nouvelles technologies ont radicalement transformé notre travail.

6348   Bien que la manière d'écouter, de regarder et de consulter les contenus varie selon les plateformes, nous ne sommes plus un diffuseur avec des médias indépendants les uns des autres.

6349   Nous sommes devenus une organisation multiplateforme dans laquelle nous collaborons et partageons des ressources de manière à générer des contenus disponibles sur la plateforme qui convient le mieux à chaque usager et à chaque proposition de contenu.

6350   Nous sommes une entreprise de plus en plus intégrée.

6351   Au cours de la dernière année, les services français de Radio-Canada a grandement enrichi et diversifié leurs activités de diffusion sur Internet.

6352   Par exemple, en ce début de 2009, plus de 75 titres d'émissions de radio et de télévision ont été disponibles sur Radio-Canada.ca en rattrapage.

6353   Qu'il s'agisse de dramatiques, de variétés, d'émissions jeunesse, de nouvelles ou d'affaires publiques, ces contenus sont clairement de plus en plus appréciés et de plus en plus consultés.

6354   Parfois, les émissions sont intégrales. D'autres fois, il s'agit d'extraits qui sont reformatés, de tournages en coulisses ou encore d'entrevues Web.

6355   Souvent, nous sollicitons les internautes pour qu'ils influencent et participent à la création de nos contenus et de nos offres.

6356   Nous proposons même des séries de capsules créées exclusivement pour le Web, selon des formats propres au Web.

6357   L'offre de contenus sur le Web peut aussi prendre la forme d'espaces thématiques, comme, par exemple, la nouvelle Zone Musique que Radio-Canada a lancée en 2008.

6358   Elle regroupe émissions, concerts, évènements spéciaux, blogues et critiques.

6359   L'initiative musique de Radio-Canada comprend aussi 12 web-radio classiques de genre classique et de genre musique émergeante.

6360   À partir du 11 mars nous ajoutons 6 web-radio en jazz.

6361   La même chose se passe du côté des services anglais de Radio-Canada/CBC.

6362   Par exemple, CBC Radio 2 a récemment lancé quatre services de musique en ligne, dans les genres classiques, compositeurs canadiens jazz et chansonniers canadiens.

6363   CBC Television est aussi partenaire avec une chaîne de nouvelles et d'affaires publiques destinée aux jeunes adultes, Current TV, qui, si elle obtient l'approbation du CRTC, deviendra une proposition multiplateforme qui ciblera les jeunes Canadiens intéressés par la participation et la création de contenus interactifs sur le Web et à la télé.

6364   Current TV sera le seul réseau au Canada qui produira et programmera en collaboration avec son auditoire.

6365   Des initiatives comme celles-là et bien d'autres font en sorte que CBC/Radio-Canada reste dynamique et pertinent dans un univers où les technologies et les habitudes de consommation sont en évolution constante.

6366   Nos actions visent à donner accès au plus grand nombre de personnes de manière à promouvoir la culture, l'identité et la démocratie canadiennes.

6367   Tout ceci n'est pas qu'une question de plateformes. C'est surtout une question de contenus et une question de défis auxquels nous faisons face pour créer ces contenus et pour pouvoir les offrir sur toutes les différentes plateformes.

6368   Steve ?

6369   M. BILLINGER : Merci, Geneviève.

6370   Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, staff, as Geneviève has indicated, CBC/Radio-Canada is a new media broadcaster, and from that perspective we see new media broadcasting as an opportunity.

6371   New media broadcasting enables us to enhance accessibility, engagement and exposure to our content. We are truly in a dialogue with our viewers.

6372   While this is a tremendous opportunity, it creates a number of significant and unique challenges.

6373   First, whatever broadcasting is available on our new media platforms depends heavily on the success of our other media platforms.

6374   And increasingly the success of our broadcasting is dependent on our new media efforts.

6375   Make no mistake about this, new media is not a "nice to do" but is a "must do" for our continued success.

6376   A strong and an effective broadcasting system that maintains and promotes quality Canadian content on traditional broadcast media will in turn result in quality Canadian broadcasting content on new media.

6377   It is important to realize that on the new media side, broadcasters continue their traditional role of partnering, promoting, distributing and helping to fund the creation of Canadian content.

6378   Second, unlike traditional media, our competition for people's attention comes from all over the world. The only way we can capture people's attention is by being relevant, and the way we can be relevant and engage Canadian audiences is through our Canadian content -- made-in-Canada information, entertainment and sports.

6379   That is our advantage.

6380   Third, the greatest challenge we have is the business model.

6381   Internet advertising has risen dramatically in a short period of time as advertisers have recognized the time that people are spending on this platform.

6382   However, over 99 per cent of the advertising dollars that are generated on new media platforms are not associated with broadcasting.

6383   They are associated with paid-for searches, with display banner ads, and with classified ads.

6384   On the other hand, costs -- related to rights, production, new forms of distribution -- have risen.

6385   So, we're still a long way away from a successful business model for broadcasting on new media.

6386   At the same time, the tremendous growth in non-broadcast Internet advertising has come at the expense of other media--newspapers, magazines and traditional broadcasting, and in particular conventional television.

6387   What we are losing in revenue on the traditional side of the business is not being made up on the new media side of the business.

6388   The immediate challenge therefore is to sustain what we are doing in new media broadcasting via the traditional broadcasting business models.

6389   The Commission has asked us: Are incentives or regulatory measures required to support Canadian broadcasting content in new media?

6390   Our short answer is yes.

6391   Without a clear business model for stand-alone new media content, as we move forward we need to determine whether the overall support system for Canadian content is sufficient to sustain and increase Canadian content on all platforms -- new and traditional.

6392   However, whether in the short or long term, new regulatory measures or incentives need to generate new resources for the system as a whole.

6393   Any measure that would simply take existing resources from one broadcasting media, such as conventional television, to be used on another, such as new media, would be completely counter-productive, and harmful to the overall system.

6394   We need to look at Canadian content in a more integrated way, across multiple platforms--TV, radio, satellite, mobile and the Internet.

6395   Steve?

6396   MR. GUITON: Thank you.

6397   I would like to conclude our presentation, if I may, by setting out the facts on new media broadcasting, and the decision that we believe is before the Commission.

6398   First, as is clear from Geneviève's discussion of our activities, the costs of new media are real and significant, and continue to rise.

6399   Second, as Steve indicated, there is no current business case for new media broadcasting.

6400   Very few revenues are being generated from new media broadcasting to cover rising costs.

6401   Third, the existing funding models for traditional broadcasting are already spread thinly and, if new media broadcasting costs continue to be simply added to the mix, with no new revenues, logically the system will be weakened not strengthened.

6402   So, those are the facts.

6403   With those facts, it is our view that the policy choices for the Commission are straightforward.

6404   First, assuming the Commission believes that these services contribute in a material manner to Canadian broadcasting policy, it must decide whether regulatory support for new media broadcasting is required.

6405   In other words, will revenues soon emerge in the marketplace to cover the costs of new media broadcasting?

6406   If the Commission believes the answer is yes, then it can simply step back and continue to monitor the sector.

6407   If the Commission concludes otherwise, the next step is to determine whether interim or permanent support is required, and the form this support should take.

6408   Prior to today's appearance, CBC/Radio-Canada had not advocated a specific funding model for new media.

6409   We had simply taken the view that we believed new funding was required.

6410   We have since come to the conclusion that the only reasonable and effective funding approach is to require a contribution from ISPs.

6411   Given the increasing importance that broadcasting distribution plays for ISPs and the difficulty of implementing other traditional regulatory tools in the non-linear new media space, it makes sense that ISPs be required to make a contribution.

6412   Finally, it is our view that the creation of an ISP contribution is within the Commission's authority and jurisdiction under the Broadcasting Act.

6413   As we see it, the definition of a distribution undertaking in the Broadcasting Act focuses on the activity undertaken, which is the reception and retransmission of the programming services of others, rather than the technology used to carry on this activity.

6414   We therefore think ISP's are captured by the current definition.

6415   Therefore, we believe it is possible for the Commission to require an ISP contribution, pursuant to the Act, and that it should do so on an interim basis, as it continues to conduct periodic reviews on the development of a new media broadcasting business model.

6416   We would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.

6417   Thank you very much.

6418   THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your presentation.

6419   As a public broadcaster, you can be sure my colleagues and I have a lot of questions for you.

6420   Let me start out exactly with that point: public broadcasters.

6421   The new media is obviously a great challenge for every body. What is the special role of the public broadcaster in new media?

6422   We see other nations have used various methods of using the public broadcaster in this environment.

6423   What do you see as the special role that you have in the new media context? What is it that you want to achieve there?

6424   MR. GUITON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

6425   As we indicated in our evidence, we see the role of the public broadcasters--as part of our broad mandate, we have to be on as many platforms as possible in order to meet Canadians where they go to consume broadcasting. That is part of our mandate.

6426   In addition, we have identified that we promote Canadian content in doing this. We promote the democratization of the broadcasting system.

6427   And so our role, as it applies to all other platforms -- whether it is TV, radio -- is now assumed in the new media platform as well.

6428   What are the challenges for us in doing that?

6429   Clearly, as we have indicated today, we have financial challenges. We, like all other broadcasters, are extending our traditional funding model into the new media area simply because there is no obvious funding model applicable at this point in time.

6430   So whereas our role -- our traditional public broadcasting role -- extends outward, our financing model doesn't, so that is the challenge.

6431   THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well, I appreciate your financial issues and I certainly sympathize, but unfortunately that's not something we can very much address.

6432   But what I really was trying to get at is: Do you see your role or your function different in the new media environment than the traditional one?

6433   Let me explain. When I look at Britain and I see that BBC really seems to see itself as a repository of the digital heritage of Britain, you know, it's certainly putting a lot of money emphasis on that and created an IPTV et cetera.

6434   I see that the French seem to be thinking that really traditional broadcasting should be a commercial-free broadcasting and should represent a different France than that you see on commercial TV et cetera.

6435   I just wondered how you see yourself in this new environment. Has your role in any way changed or is it just the same on various platforms?

6436   MR. GUITON: If you would permit me, I am going to pass it over to Steve Billinger who has had extensive experience in Britain and perhaps can give you a sense of the comparison.

6437   MR. BILLINGER: Thanks.

6438   That's a great question and it is yet another thing that we need to be concerned about in this space.

6439   As you know, we are active in the digital archive space, we have been for a number of years with in part funding with the government. That funding actually is drying up as of March, as of next month. We made an effort there to take much of our digital archive, both storytelling video and audio and put it online, but also put it online in a way that makes sense to Canadians with a narrative.

6440   So we have a very extensive digital archive right now live that is put together in a storytelling sense and is a critical part of our news operation.

6441   In addition, I think when I first arrived at the CBC two years ago, it was prior to the video explosion, we had only four shows available for on-demand playback in our video environment. I said to Steve yesterday, laughingly, that this came through to Dell computers sitting on the floor. As of last week we had over 7000 video assets in a universal media player. I don't know what the number is on audio, but there is certainly in the thousands.

6442   So part of our role there is to make available our video and audio heritage in a universal media player to people and we are succeeding at that.

6443   I think, finally, just to follow up a little point on Steven's in terms of our kind of our remit or how I see ourselves as being different, is new media can play a really powerful role for us in local and regional and we have been very, very focused on it over the last year and a half.

6444   You may be aware we ran a pilot in Vancouver called "My CBC", it was really an effort to reach out and provide at a regional level information for people that was important in their lives, ferry departures, snow conditions, weather, and so forth and so on. We are in the process now of reconstituting all of that content online to provide both a kind of rich video and audio heritage, a history or a record of what we have been doing in the news and information front over the last 2 to 3 years, plus their own stories at the local level.

6445   MR. GUITON: Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask Geneviève to add a comment from the French side.

6446   Thank you.

6447   MME ROSSIER : Oui. Au sujet des archives de Radio-Canada, les archives numériques, c'est un projet dont Steve parlait qui nous est très cher. On a fait énormément de choses en créant, depuis plusieurs années, des dossiers d'archives qui sont très consultés et qui a été vraiment un succès d'estime important. On est très fier de ceci. Malheureusement, le financement vient à sa fin.

6448   Mais quand vous demandiez, Monsieur le Président, sur le rôle qu'on voit pour le diffuseur public sur les nouvelles plateformes, Steve et Steve en ont parlé un peu, mais c'est toute la dimension de l'engagement qu'on peut créer entre le diffuseur public et les contenus et les propositions de contenus qui sont offertes.

6449   Alors, par engagement, j'entends si quelqu'un a manqué une émission, il peut retourner la voir à l'heure qui lui convient sur Internet ou sur un autre support. Déjà, on améliore l'accès.

6450   Également, on a de plus en plus d'opportunités qui permettent aux gens de parler, de discuter, d'engager une conversation, dans la création de contenu, avec le diffuseur public. Aujourd'hui, les gens s'attendent à pouvoir faire ça, pas juste vis-à-vis Radio-Canada, mais vis-à-vis tous les diffuseurs de médias traditionnels. Ils s'attendent et ils veulent avoir des opportunités et des endroits où les diffuseurs écoutent la réaction et permettent ce genre de discussion entre le diffuseur et son auditoire.

6451   THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for that answer, because that's exactly what I wanted to hear, I mean whether you see your role differently and clearly. You say that a traditional broadcaster you present and reflect, but now you have an ability to dialogue and engage the citizen and so your role actually does change quite significantly. It's not just that you have the same content on all sorts of different platforms, but your actual role, your activities will change as well.

6452   MR. BILLINGER: If I could give some specific numbers on engagement, because often it's a word that comes with some soft undertones.

6453   Let me give you two specific examples very recently.

6454   When Barack Obama, the President of the United States, came to Ottawa recently we conducted for the first time a live blog which meant that five of our journalists entered into a space where Canadians could join them and ask questions of them, journalists could direct them to other areas of the website to provide answers, and so forth.

6455   By the middle of the day when Barack Obama was here on the Hill, 16,500 Canadians at the same time were engaged with five journalists over the news story. At the same time, 95,000 of them were watching the stream of Newsworld and we peaked out in terms of our bandwidth for that story.

6456   Now, that's an event that could not happen on television because clearly those people were at work and maybe didn't have access to Newsworld and were engaged with our journalists in a way that they could not do over television.

6457   ComScore released our figures just last week for the most recent month. We saw a 47 percent growth in page use, which is a kind of indicator of how people are using your site.

6458   5.2 million in a month unique visitors on the English side. The CBC on the English side has never seen that number that high, has never seen growth that high.

6459   I think the most compelling figure is that last month Canadians spent 99 million minutes online with the CBC.

6460   THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

6461   Now, Geneviève, you said:

« Nous proposons même des séries de capsules créées exclusivement pour le Web, selon les formats propres au Web. »

6462   That's quite different from what we heard from others. The majority of people who came before us have the content is the same and really if you produce for traditional and then you repurpose for the web or for others, et cetera. Producing for the web by itself is a mugs game more or less, there is not enough market and anyway that's not economic, you really do produce for traditional and then you repurpose.

6463   Now, explain to me why you are not following the trend.

6464   MME ROSSIER : Il faut que je qualifie ça, quand même, parce que la grande majorité du contenu qui est affiché sur radio-canada.ca, la grande majorité, c'est du contenu qui vient de la radio et de la télévision, soit dans sa forme intégrale, une émission qui est rendue disponible, ou alors, sous une forme reformatée où on fait des montages et des coupures, et caetera.

6465   Ensuite, il y a toute une tranche qui est ce que j'appellerais du contenu hybride, c'est-à-dire du contenu qui est fait sur le Web, mais qui est toujours en lien avec une émission. Je vous donne un exemple. On a bientôt la « Soirée des Jutra » sur Radio-Canada. Alors, en avance de la « Soirée des Jutra », radio-canada.ca va proposer une série d'entrevues qui sont faites que pour le Web, avec les acteurs, les gens qui sont pressentis pour gagner, et qui vont être mises en ligne afin de créer une espèce de crescendo vers la « Soirée des Jutra. » Ça, c'est que j'appellerais du contenu hybride.

6466   Dans la toute dernière portion, et c'est vraiment très, très mineur dans nos activités, il nous est arrivé de faire des contenus spécifiquement pour le Web. Récemment, on a mis en ligne une série dans la section pour les jeunes, une série de petites capsules où il y avait un magicien qui expliquait aux jeunes comment faire des petits trucs de magie. Tous les enfants sont allés là-dessus. Ils ont essayé ça.

6467   Mais c'est vraiment une portion infime de nos activités. La grande majorité consiste à travailler avec du contenu qui existe déjà ou à donner de la valeur ajoutée à des marques de radio et de télévision qui sont sur le Web.

6468   LE PRÉSIDENT : Et est-ce que ça va changer dans le futur ou les proportions vont rester les mêmes, selon vous?

6469   MME ROSSIER : Écoutez, il faudra voir. Nous, on souhaite continuer à faire des tentatives, des essais. Il est possible aussi que certains des contenus qui seraient créés pour le Web de manière originale puissent ensuite être repris à la télévision.

6470   Mais si votre question, c'est est-ce qu'on va prendre toutes nos ressources maintenant pour ne faire que du contenu original, la réponse, c'est non. C'est certain que le coeur de nos opérations reste vraiment dans la portion des contenus qui sont déjà faits pour la radio et la télévision.

6471   THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

6472   Finally, before I turn you over to my colleagues, in your December 5th submission on page 3 of you talk about content aggregators, new media content aggregators. I presume you are talking about such people as you cite later on as wwwitv.com or JumpTV, et cetera.

6473   Are those the people you call content aggregators?

6474   MR. BILLINGER: Yes, we were referring to those types of operators, that's correct.

6475   THE CHAIRPERSON: What you say then in the second paragraph, the last sentence on page 3:

"Licensed and off-air broadcasting services should be required to ensure the services are not being made available to Canadians by new media content aggregators unless such aggregators agreed to comply with obligations established by the Commission for such entities." (As read)

6476   Operationalize that for me. I understand the concept.

6477   How on earth would we do this?

6478   MR. GUITON: Right.

6479   THE CHAIRPERSON: By the way, you don't seem to follow that yourself because I went this morning onto the channel and on wwwitv and indeed the CBC is there.

6480   MR. GUITON: Let me try to explain what that phrase means, because we also refer to it later and it has a lot to do with, you will notice in our oral remarks today we have changed our position somewhat and let me explain the process that we went through.

6481   THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, if this is no longer your position, then let's not waste any time on it.

6482   MR. GUITON: It is not exactly our position.

6483   What we tried to explain there, we thought there was a way for the Commission to apply its regulations. We have now tried to broaden that as we were thinking through on our appearance. it's not possible.

6484   THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Fine.

6485   MR. GUITON: So while the Commission can do a little bit of what we tried to explain, it becomes extremely complicated.

6486   THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I appreciate that admission. Let's not waste time on ideas that have been overcome then, because, as I say, I was startled. I understand the content, but I think it's hard to implement.

6487   Len, you have some questions?

6488   COMMISSIONER KATZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

6489   I think I'm going to start, but I think an awful lot of the Commissioners have some questions as well.

6490   I want to start with the notion of multi-platforms. I think you made a point a number of times in your December 5th submission that when you purchase content you insist on getting it for all platforms or else you basically move on. That was the message. You were very, very clear about it as well.

6491   When you purchase for non-traditional broadcasting purposes, how do you value that content?

6492   What goes through your mind when you value the content for non-traditional broadcasting purposes?

6493   MR. GUITON: I'm going to let you talk to the content experts.

6494   MR. BILLINGER: This again is a great question and it's one that's very confusing to us and very complex and there is no uniform answer so let me stick to some content genre specifics.

6495   In the area of sports there are substantive amounts of money being spent for what we call secondary or non-traditional rights, particularly in the area of our hockey contract. A lot of time in our discussions with the NHL we are told how those rights are valued and it makes the cost of acquiring that rights package very substantive.

6496   If we don't acquire the rights in a sports package, then we can run the risk of building a brand value around Hockey Night in Canada, but see that content competing with us directly in our marketplace by non-Canadian companies. So sports is a unique case.

6497   In the area of independent production or in drama, what we have basically tried to do is -- we look to traditional models where we kind of have some reference, like international sales for example and the value of North American home video rights, other things that sound or smell a little bit like new media, and in general what you see there is that license fees are not paid upfront in substantial amounts for those, but we enter into a kind of rev share with producers because it's a shared risk and shared reward.

6498   Clearly we spend a lot of money both in commissioning the content and building a network for distribution, promoting that content, we believe we can increase the value of it, we would like to kind of share in the revenues on that front.

6499   It is very hard to get at a formula to specifically assign a value to a non-traditional right and in fact non-traditional rights in isolation of the main broadcast. There is arguments that they are essentially valueless right now. So we look at it as a kind of overall package.

6500   If I could just have 10 more seconds to try to walk you through the criteria we use, we have a fully integrated development progress when we look at any program.

6501   Right now we ask ourselves three basic questions around non-media rights when we are considering them within the context of the program.

6502   Do the non-media rates help the program in three critical ways? For example, will we solicit contestants our engagement with the audience on the non-media platforms in the on-air program? So Canada's Next Great Prime Minister is a perfect example, Dragon's Den is also a perfect example, where we actually solicit the contestants in that show from the new media outreach and engagement. So it is critical that we have those rights.

6503   The other criteria is where we solicit content.

6504   We get a program -- a little bit of a follow-up to Mr. Chairman's question around original content -- called Exposure in which we reached out through Yahoo and on-air to get Canadians to make independent films, very short three minute pieces of film that were then compiled into a one-hour network programming. So it was critical that the new media component was in existence because the on-air show was built from it.

6505   The third good example or criteria that we use is last year or the year before on Canada Day, in partnership with Facebook and CBC News, we did a social networking experiment where we asked people, Canadians, to answer the question: If you were Prime Minister on Canada Day what would be the first thing that you would do? Each of the individuals proposed something, kind of put in place a series of friends that they made clear what their view was, and then however many friends they had on July 1st was the answer to what it was that they would support.

6506   So those are three criteria where the social network or the interaction or engagement is critical to on-air or where we focus our rights quest as it were.

6507   COMMISSIONER KATZ: Okay. So let me focus in on independent production.

6508   You say it's more of a revenue share model than anything else as well.

6509   MR. BILLINGER: Yes.

6510   COMMISSIONER KATZ: When you enter into it, are there commitments made by the CBC, by the public broadcaster, SRC, with regard to actually promoting that content on the other platforms by a certain date and then measuring that as well, or is it sort of you will put it on when you think you need to put it on and those are the terms and conditions under which you will purchase it for other purposes?

6511   MR. BILLINGER: If I can jump in for 20 and then -- or do you want to go to Geneviève first?

6512   MS ROSSIER: Just directly on that point.

6513   On fait aussi à Radio-Canada, comme Steve a décrit, toute une étude pour le choix de quels sont les meilleurs droits à acquérir pour aller sur les nouvelles plateformes, parce qu'elles ont un potentiel nouvelles plateformes, nouveaux médias, avec l'engagement avec les citoyens, et caetera.

6514   Et quand on le fait, on a, nous, un système très élaboré à Radio-Canada, qu'on appelle le système de promotion croisée, qui fait en sorte que quand je mets un programme en ligne sur radio-canada.ca, il y a la radio qui va en parler, il y a la télé qui va en parler. On va faire les liens appropriés avec les émissions du même genre, de manière à ce que l'argent qui est dépensé pour mettre une émission en ligne soit dépensé correctement et qu'on signale proprement aux auditeurs que cette émission est maintenant disponible.

6515   Alors, c'est quelque chose qui demande beaucoup d'organisation et de réflexion sur comment on fait de la promotion utile et efficace entre les différentes plateformes de manière à ce que les gens sachent où les contenus sont disponibles, mais on fait beaucoup ce travail-là.

6516   MR. BILLINGER: A quick follow-up.

6517   You know, we think that for independent producers there are real benefits to working with us as a broadcaster. We get indirect benefit, the independent producers get direct benefit from new media production related to on-air. You know that you will have other funding bodies here in front of you during the sessions.

6518   The on-air interaction with our broadcaster triggers funding for them in the Bell New Media Fund and others, but also triggers for them production tax credits and it's a critical part that there is an on-air component to it.

6519   In the Bell Fund in particular -- and Andrew Scheffer(ph) can answer this directly for you, there is a kind of matching component for the broadcaster, that if we spend actual cash in marketing the fund will match that amount. So we have to make a commitment both in cash terms and in time terms to promoting our new media activities.

6520   To my knowledge, we are the only broadcaster that makes substantive marketing commitments and we kind of top out that proportion for independent producers, so it has a time and cash commitment.

6521   COMMISSIONER KATZ: So all your agreements have explicit timelines for the deployment of the content on other platforms?

6522   MR. BILLINGER: So if it seeks an application to third-party funding, then both the timing for the funding, the nature of the promotion, the amount of cash that would be spent on it is explicit in that application.

6523   To come back to new media productions that don't access, say, Bell new media funding, our promotion strategy is very transparent for the independent production sector. We have a series of what we call one, two, and three promotions, or tiered promotions, and if it's a 1A or 1B promotion it's very clear that overall promotion strategy at the time of that strategy, the platforms that will be used and so forth. And often in negotiation upfront with the producers we can at least outline how that works before we make the decision as to whether there may be a one, two or three. And it has substantially cross promotion and substantial marketing.

6524   The final point I would make is that the benefit of working with us as a broadcaster for new media is that we have a very substantive and extended distribution network or syndication network, so by working with us we make every effort through my department to get that content also syndicated in YouTube and MySpace, and so forth and so on, an option that independent producers don't have on their own.

6525   Many of the people, like Apple, won't even talk to an independent production company but will only deal through broadcasters. So that's the kind of three-pronged approach that we bring to independent production where we see direct benefit to them.

6526   COMMISSIONER KATZ: Okay. I'm going to move on to the financial side of it for a few minutes.

6527   You stated primarily in your December 5th documentation, but I think you alluded to it in this morning's remarks as well, that from a financial perspective there is far more in ad revenue being lost on the traditional side than is being gained to the new media side.

6528   Is that primarily the byproduct of the economy that we face today or there other reasons notwithstanding the fact that new media is here and people may be migrating? But you're saying the quantum of the migration as it relates to video on the internet is very, very small, it was $9 million or whatever you quoted.

6529   MR. BILLINGER: That's correct. And that's not related simply to the current state of the economy, that has been a trend that we have seen for some time that the ad revenue is flowing to the internet. It's growing, it's one of the fastest growing vehicles for advertising, but the type of advertising that's going on in the internet is not broadcast necessarily related. In fact, 99 percent of it is not related to broadcasting per se, it's going, I think as Steve mentioned this morning, it's going to search engines, it's going to other types of advertising.

6530   So the fragmentation and the fact that people are spending time on the internet is of course drawing advertisers to it, but it's not moving with us, in other words it's going to other vehicles.

6531   COMMISSIONER KATZ: How can broadcasters address that, other than just getting more money?

6532   MR. GUITON: Well, there are subscriber fees I suppose.

6533   Look, what we were trying to do is be as imaginative as possible going to this new space. It is new. We are all trying to figure out how the advertising model is working, but clearly for the moment most of the money is not related to the type of activity that we are engaged in, which is broadcasting. There are pre-rolls, there are banner ads.

6534   We are getting revenues from our internet sites with respect to banner ads, so we are putting banner ads up and that's contributed probably most of the advertising revenue that we are seeing, but it's not related to the associated video content that we may be creating on the site and that people can get access to.

6535   We have to be imaginative, we have to be patient and try to figure out how we can try new technologies.

6536   I'm sure Steve and Geneviève can tell you about some of the things we are actually trying to experiment with and it may be that over time new forms emerge.

6537   But at the current time our traditional businesses losing advertising from, as you well know from the previous hearings we have been at, from fragmentation of audiences and the audiences that we see in the internet space, where a lot of the ads are going, aren't usable, let's say, by the broadcast community.

6538   MR. BILLINGER: If I can quickly try to answer some of those questions, you are absolutely right, you know, that the total ad spend in the new media space often you see numbers, you know, $1 billion, $1.2 billion and it seems that that's a pretty big pool, that we should be able to catch some of that.

6539   You know, you have also see the breakdowns and you understand that that's not broadcasting activity. Less than $9 million goes to video or audio streaming of one sort or another. Our ad revenues are in the order of a couple of hundred million dollars in terms of broadcasting activity and the networks are higher. So it's a very small amount.

6540   I think what you do, rather than just sit around and wait for the money to show up in advertising is to provide integrated packages which we spent an enormous amount of time working on. So to that end in the last year we have tried to build a digital ad sales team and an integrated ad sales team.

6541   What I mean by that specifically is trying to combine on-air content with components of new media selling, so custom content creation, forms of product placement. The perfect example would be sports working on Rogers MashUp. We were traditionally in that space within sports, we used to do within the feature Hockey Night in Canada new features that could also be advertised and we will take that to off-line where Rogers can have a specifically interactive component that must work off-line.

6542   So we are all spending an enormous amount of time thinking about integrated ad sales, but even when we succeed there they would be the smallest amount of our broadcast revenue.

6543   The final thing is that we are very, very focused on platform buildout on engagement features. You know, we have to get out ahead of the ad market right now and prove to them that large numbers of Canadians are engaging with our service.

6544   You will hear advertisers talk about touch points or activation points, we have to be there. We don't know where the money is going to flow. We know it's going to flow to some of them and we are spending an enormous amount of money right now building our platforms out to be active in all of those touch points. Hopefully when the money flows we will have an engaged audience there.

6545   MME ROSSIER : Si je peux juste rajouter.

6546   CONSEILLER KATZ : Oui, s'il vous plaît.

6547   MME ROSSIER : De notre point de vue aussi, de plus en plus, la vente de publicité se fait de façon intégrée entre les différentes plateformes. Donc, on offre des packages, si vous voulez, pour un annonceur qui veut être à la fois à la télévision, sur le Web, et aussi sur le mode de la commandite, qui est très populaire chez nous.

6548   Pour ce qui est du vidéo, vous avez le format aussi pre-roll où on met un petit 15 secondes, qui n'est pas la même durée que ce qu'on offre à la télévision avant le visionnement d'un programme, et maintenant, on comment à intégrer dans ces formats-là du mid-roll, donc, des publicités à l'intérieur même des programmes télévisés.

6549   Nous, dans l'année qui vient, on a remarqué une augmentation d'intérêt de la part des acheteurs pour, justement, les produits qui sont en audio-vidéo, parce que sur radio-canada.ca, en une année, on a eu une augmentation de 55 pour cent des visionnements des produits en vidéo sur notre site. C'est une énorme augmentation, donc, un grand intérêt pour ces contenus-là, et les annonceurs sont en train de s'intéresser à ça, mais ça reste encore très minime.

6550   COMMISSIONER KATZ: Thank you.

6551   Financial aside, given that you are the public broadcaster for Canada, is there anything else that the ISPs can contribute besides just a monetary levy for transmission of broadcasting to promote your wares, which is Canadian content, Canadian heritage, Canadian identity, that would help put the Canadian flag higher up on the agenda than anything else people might be searching for, whether it's to promotion, visibility or whatever?

6552   MR. GUITON: We have thought for ourselves as a public broadcaster and for Canadian content in general about trying to -- the idea of having ISPs give predominance to Can con on their sites, et cetera.

6553   We have been talking about it and we haven't actually thought about how it would work exactly. We are not sure whether the ISPs would find that too controlling and whether it would work from the point of view of Canadians or whether the Canadians themselves would find that not effective, but it is something that we are thinking about. That's one aspect besides financial approach.

6554   COMMISSIONER KATZ: Is it something you plan to file with us before the end of this proceeding?

6555   MR. GUITON: We would be happy to.

6556   COMMISSIONER KATZ: Okay.

6557   My last question, or near last question, in your submission on December 5th -- and this may be something that has come and gone as well -- you talked about the notion of limiting how people broadcast over the internet by leveraging what we do in the BDU side with eligible satellite licences and pulling them off the bird and everything else as well.

6558   Is that something that has come and gone or is that something that is still in your mind a workable solution?

6559   MR. GUITON: As I was mentioning to the Chairman earlier, I could describe it to you.

6560   It's an interesting idea, we just think it can really cover all the possibilities in the online world. So we think we are retiring it.

6561   COMMISSIONER KATZ: Okay.

6562   You did say this morning that the ISP levy is the scenario that is the more preferred one. You stayed away from WSPs, the wireless fellows. Do you see them as being distinct and different, or do you see them as being in the same camp, and you use those references to ISP interchangeably?

6563   MR. GUITON: We are using them interchangeably.

6564   In fact, I think it would be our view that the activities of wireless providers are increasingly looking a lot like what we see the wireline providers doing, so we would include them in the BDU class.

6565   COMMISSIONER KATZ: Okay. Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman.

6566   THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

6567   One point that Vice-Chairman Katz raised was the whole idea of -- we have heard various people talking very loosely about the idea of, in effect, a fast lane for Canadian content, or a special bit cap for Canadian content, et cetera.

6568   If you are going to address that issue in your further submissions, I would be interested, because it is a very loose concept. People are throwing it around, and nobody has given us, really, any sort of structure or some idea of what they have in mind.

6569   Presumably, for you, being practically 100 percent Canadian content, it would be of great importance, so we would like to have your views on that.

6570   MR. GUITON: We will do that.

6571   THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

6572   Michel?

6573   COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

6574   Au niveau du fonctionnement de votre secteur des nouveaux médias, on a entendu les producteurs multimédias nous dire qu'il y avait peut-être jusqu'à 125 personnes qui travaillaient dans le secteur des nouveaux médias à Radio-Canada, et un peu plus tôt ce matin, monsieur Billinger, lui, parlait d'utilisation de producteurs indépendants.

6575   Est-ce que vous avez deux modes de fonctionnement distincts ou est-ce que ça se ressemble passablement dans le mode de fonctionnement du secteur des nouveaux médias?

6576   MME ROSSIER : Je crois que ça se ressemble. À la base, ça se ressemble. Nous avons des gens qui travaillent aux nouveaux médias qui sont des journalistes qui s'occupent de la mise à jour constante du site. Nous avons des équipes qui s'occupent de la production, c'est-à-dire de la création des espaces numériques, de l'intégration des contenus, et caetera. Donc, tous ces gens-là sont des employés de Radio-Canada. On a des gens qui sont en informatique. On a des gens qui travaillent sur l'infrastructure du site.

6577   Et on fait aussi affaire avec des producteurs indépendants, beaucoup via les fonds qui sont disponibles et qui sont attribués à des producteurs indépendants, qui fabriquent les contenus que nous mettons ensuite en valeur sur radio-canada.ca.

6578   Mais c'est un ensemble, si vous voulez, de toutes ces choses-là qui forment radio-canada.ca, et je crois que Steve vous donnerait à peu près la même réponse.

6579   CONSEILLER ARPIN : Vous avez parlé vous-même plus tôt ce matin d'une émission originale exclusive pour l'Internet, destinée aux jeunes. Est-ce que c'est une production de producteurs indépendants? Est-ce que c'est un concept de producteurs indépendants? Est-ce que c'est un concept de Radio-Canada?

6580   MME ROSSIER : C'est un concept de chez nous. Celui-là, ça été produit à l'interne.

6581   En fait, je crois que la réponse à votre question, c'est qu'il y a de tout. Il y a des choses que nous avons fabriquées à l'interne. C'était le cas des capsules de magie.

6582   CONSEILLER ARPIN : Oui.

6583   MME ROSSIER : Il y a d'autres choses, par exemple, le site de « Toc Toc Toc », qui est une autre émission jeunesse qui a eu beaucoup de succès et qui, lui, a été fabriqué à partir d'un Fonds Bell, donc, à l'externe.

6584   Donc, il y a toute sorte de modèles qui sont possibles. Nous ne sommes pas que des personnes qui font des acquisitions de l'extérieur. Nous sommes aussi des créateurs de contenus à l'interne.

6585   CONSEILLER ARPIN : Mais quand vous faites affaire avec un producteur indépendant, est-ce qu'il vous soumet des concepts ou si c'est vous qui déterminez du concept et vous sollicitez des producteurs indépendants, un peu comme un sous-traitant?

6586   MME ROSSIER : Je crois que c'est, comme processus de création, beaucoup une route à deux sens. Puisque les fonds sont beaucoup liés à... ils sont, en fait, essentiellement liés à des émissions de télévision qui passent à la Première chaîne de Radio-Canada...

6587   CONSEILLER ARPIN : Oui.

6588   MME ROSSIER : ...on sait qui sont les producteurs. On s'assoit avec eux et on discute. On leur dit : Écoutez, on serait intéressé à avoir quelque chose là-dessus pour le Web. Est-ce que vous avez des idées? Nous en avons une. Bon. Alors, c'est un dialogue constant, et puis, c'est comme ça que ça se passe. Ce n'est pas uniquement dans un sens.

6589   COMMISSIONER ARPIN: I guess it would be a very similar reply regarding the CBC?

6590   MR. BILLINGER: Absolutely. I think people forget that as a broadcaster we both commission and acquire and create content. A number of our people are allocated to the creation of content, substantively in the areas we are active, which is news, sports, children's and radio.

6591   We also produce -- we have a responsibility to be a broadcast network, so we have a number of people in production and operations who do traditional broadcast skills, but for new media -- promotion, marketing, distribution, business development and so forth.

6592   Then, finally, we both commission and/or acquire programming. If we are commissioning, then it is exactly a dialogue, as Geneviève says. We have some ideas; they have others. A perfect example is DHX, Decode Entertainment and Tribal Nova, a Montreal-based company, which has produced a children's service, which is an educational service based on the playout of small video pieces. Some of those small video pieces already existed, because we had made the on-air programming, but they are making a substantive new package of them.

6593   So the service, overall, is a completely new thing, but, in part, based on work that we had done with them in the past.

6594   So we are active in all three areas.

6595   COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Thank you very much.

6596   Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman.

6597   THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

6598   Rita?

6599   COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank you, and good morning.

6600   What I would like to explore with you a little bit is the relationship between traditional broadcasting and the content that you provide online.

6601   Can you give me an estimate, or maybe you have the exact percentage, of how many of the programs that are available on your traditional linear channel have some kind of ancillary content online?

6602   MR. BILLINGER: Maybe.

--- Laughter

6603   COMMISSIONER CUGINI: So maybe it will be a guesstimate. Okay.

6604   MR. BILLINGER: It's tricky.

6605   Let's take it by genre. News is substantively online. Almost all of what we do in the news and information and documentary space, I would say, has a new media component of one sort or another.

6606   I would say that sports is substantively online, and has quite a lot of content that is specifically for new media -- pre-game shows, post-game shows, extended interviews and so forth.

6607   Children's, as you know, is very asymmetric. In fact, we are increasingly doing more online than we do on-air, because of the squeeze simply in time, and finite time in the schedule to provide daytime programming.

6608   Arts and entertainment is probably the most tricky one, because you know that the dynamics of entertainment programming for television are challenging, at best, and we see no indication that there is a business for straight entertainment programming, or dramatic programming, or longform programming online.

6609   I think there is no uniform answer, but as I said, or as I tried to say, I would say that most of our prime time is certainly online in broadcasting. Most of our radio service, if not all of our radio service, is available online in broadcasting and streaming, or on demand, and a substantive part of our news, sports and children's. Some version of it would be very high -- very high.

6610   MS ROSSIER: Just quickly, it would be the same for me -- news, 100 percent, current affairs.

6611   Sports, I even went over and I said 110, because sometimes we have the rights to a soccer game or something and we can't put it on the main channel on TV, so we actually take it and put it on the web. So, at times, I think we have more.

6612   Kids' -- we are moving more and more to shifting our programming to the web.

6613   Radio -- 100 percent --

6614   COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Right there, on kids', shifting and migrating children's programming from SRC to online?

6615   MS ROSSIER: Yes. There are some rights issues, but we are working on offering, as much as we can, our programming on the web. We will still have some on television, but we really want to get as much of it as possible in a catch-up mode on the web.

6616   And regional, also -- all of the regional news shows, everything is available on the web.

6617   The trickiest, as Steve said, is drama, les dramatiques et les variétés, because the rights there are more complicated. The big shows, "Tout le monde en parle", et cetera, it gets complicated a little bit more in those sectors.

6618   COMMISSIONER CUGINI: I appreciate your responding in English.

6619   MS ROSSIER: I'm sorry.

6620   COMMISSIONER CUGINI: No, I do understand French, but I was afraid that I was going to have to ask you something in French, and that would be a first time for me. So, thank you.

--- Laughter

6621   COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Are you able to establish a relationship between the viewership of a show on the linear channel when ancillary product is also available online?

6622   You mentioned Dragon's Den and you mentioned The Next Great Canadian Prime Minister. Does the presence online of those shows, or products thereof, have any relationship with the viewership on the channel?

6623   MR. BILLINGER: It has a critical relationship. Whether it is one that we can go to our on-air ratings and draw a direct correlation to is very difficult.

6624   Maybe Stan could answer this, too.

6625   It leads into, kind of, the measurement of the offline side.

6626   But if we look at specific examples where we can track them, like the Obama visit, we know exactly what our minute-by-minute audience for Newsworld was on that day.

6627   Here is how we get at that one, Rita -- and it's a great question. I asked for minute-by-minutes on Newsworld on the day. It's an event that is happening in daytime, so they were understandably low. But we also asked for the total number of comments and the time stamps for comments posted on CBC News, so we know where the activity is, when it is, and what individual stories they are posting.

6628   Then we looked at the live blogging episodes -- 16,500 people -- and they were referring, in part -- or most of the time to what they were actually seeing on the Newsworld stream.

6629   And then we looked at the actual number of streamed served -- 95,000.

6630   When we put this thing together, we have to do it on our own. It's pretty complex, and the only way we can do that is to look at an event that has a kind of limited time window. But there is an absolute correlation to what we are doing around specific types of programming, at specific times.

6631   The last thing, before I throw it over to Stan -- the other good example for us would be in the area of sports.

6632   There are two things that I want to follow up on. One is, when you look at something like the Olympics -- I missed a very essential point. Often we are forced to buy rights and packages which are much larger than we would prefer, because that is the way they are sold. We have very limited network time, and, of course, we don't have any specialty channels. So when we buy something like the Olympics or Hockey Night in Canada, we try to maximize that spend as much as possible by getting more of it on-air.

6633   When we did the Olympics last year, we had 13 continuous 24/7 streams, from every major venue, over 900 hours of television appearing offline.

6634   We do the same for sports. We are putting all of the games that we have, that we can't always squeeze onto the on-air network, and we are doing pre-game and post-game shows. One of the reasons we did that was to hold the audience on-air through the intermission between the first and second game on Saturday.

6635   So we have seen a direct correlation between them being able to do something with us under a brand umbrella online, and then coming back to join us on-air for that second show, because we have record numbers for our second airing of the evening, now in excess of 700,000.

6636   COMMISSIONER CUGINI: So is the challenge there being able to monetize that correlation?

6637   MR. BILLINGER: It is a huge challenge, also, to measure anything that is systematic and not just anecdotal.

6638   MS ROSSIER: When you look at it, you notice all kinds of different ways that people are now --

6639   I came home one night during the Olympics and my son was watching TV and he was watching the laptop at the same time. He was watching a different competition.

6640   So it's the whole idea of the complementary thing, and one is not hurting the other, one is helping the other.

6641   The first drama show that we put on the web a year and a half ago was "3600 secondes." It's a little show of jokes and capsules. We put it in the integral version, and then we put on a selection of the clips, and we watched how people were going to it. Were they going more to see the whole show, or were they going to see it bit-by-bit, and, of course, they went more bit-by-bit.

6642   It is a different way, sometimes, of accessing and experiencing the content.

6643   In my experience, because there are always people who say, "If you put it on the web, there are going to be less people on TV" -- in my experience, that is not true. Putting something on the web actually augments your brand visibility and the capacity of a viewer to catch up on something he has missed and still follow the next week, et cetera.

6644   It has been, for us, an interesting phenomenon. It is very difficult to know exactly where the numbers are, but it is fascinating to watch.

6645   COMMISSIONER CUGINI: Thank you very much.

6646   MR. BILLINGER: Very quickly, if I could follow up, Geneviève mentioned something that is very important to us, which is, in the area of entertainment, I think where there is a direct correlation of new media work is in exactly what she mentioned, which is what we call repeat or catch-up viewing.

6647   We are doing record numbers on types of programming that we think are benefiting from our new media broadcasting activity. One would be Heartland, or Being Erica, for example. Those are episodic. If you miss an episode on-air, you are less likely to watch the next one, particularly if you lose the plot, which is why I made the point of saying that we stream on a demand basis our prime time, and our prime time, as you know, is doing a plus-8 share. Never in the history of the CBC has it raised two shares in prime time and we think a lot of that is (a) the quality of the programming but (b) the ability to catch-up on those episodes so that you don't lose the plot.

6648   Repeat viewing, "Rick Mercer" and our comedy shows are doing phenomenally well because they actually bear being watched multiple times. We see that both on air because "Rick" is repeated twice in the week and we know that we have a high non-duplicated audience. So people are actually catching it because it's up against "ER" in the beginning of the week, are catching it twice because it's funny and on the repeat viewing on demand new media it actually just builds that brand value.

6649   So these are critical points for us in building kind of brand value of entertainment and comedy in particular.

6650   LE PRÉSIDENT : Louise, tu as des questions?

6651   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Merci, Monsieur le Président. Bonjour, tout le monde.

6652   Hier, nous avons rencontré le président de l'ONF, monsieur Perlmutter, qui nous a dit qu'il y avait à l'ONF un défi pour la numérisation, entre autres, de toute la documentation des archives de l'ONF, et il évaluait à $ 30 millions ou $ 40 millions le coût de cette numérisation-là, et on sait que c'est un trésor.

6653   À Radio-Canada, on sait aussi que vous possédez des trésors d'archives. Est-ce que vous pensez qu'un fonds, comme vous le demandez, permettrait à Radio-Canada et CBC de mettre disponible à la population ce trésor-là dont vous disposez, et quels sont vos projets par rapport à l'accessibilité des archives de Radio-Canada dans les nouveaux médias?

6654   MME ROSSIER : Comme on disait, on avait un octroi de Patrimoine Canada pour monter le site et commencer le travail de numérisation, qu'on a très bien fait, et qui, malheureusement, se termine.

6655   Dans la définition du fonds qu'on propose, on aimerait que le critère d'accès pour l'argent soit plus large que ce qui est disponible maintenant dans les fonds qui sont actuellement en place, parce que les fonds qui sont actuellement en place déclenchent de l'argent pour les producteurs indépendants seulement à partir d'une émission de télévision, ce qui, à notre avis, limite beaucoup ce qu'on peut faire et ne répond pas tout à fait aux besoins que nous avons de développement des plateformes numériques.

6656   Alors, si on avait un fonds tel que nous le souhaitons, il y aurait certainement une façon de... il faudrait que ce fonds-là puisse être utilisé, par exemple, pour de la numérisation d'archives pour pouvoir continuer le projet, qui, à mon avis, est très important au niveau d'un diffuseur public. Si on n'arrive pas, nous, à avoir cette espèce de bibliothèque d'archives de notre passé et tout ça et la rendre disponible, qui va le faire? C'est vraiment au coeur de notre mandat, et certainement qu'une partie de l'argent qui serait alloué au fonds pourrait servir à ça.

6657   Présentement, les fonds ne nous permettent pas d'aller chercher de l'argent pour continuer la numérisation des archives.

6658   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Au niveau des droits d'auteur aussi, est-ce que cela pourrait faire relever des défis particuliers pour Radio-Canada, parce qu'il faudrait le faire?

6659   MME ROSSIER : Oui, parce qu'il y a aussi des questions de droits d'auteur, à l'intérieur des archives, sur certaines émissions, et là, on entre dans un dossier très complexe, mais ça fait partie de tout ça aussi.

6660   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Oui.

6661   On a eu un échange aussi avec la CFTPA, qui gère le numéro international ISAN, qui permet d'identifier des produits partout où ils sont diffusés, entre autres, sur les nouveaux médias.

6662   Je me demandais, est-ce que vous utilisez ISAN pour identifier vos produits actuellement, et est-ce que vous pensez que ce serait une bonne façon de suivre la production de contenu canadien dans les nouveaux médias? Parce qu'un des objectifs, bien sûr, de la création d'un fonds pourrait être de s'assurer qu'on a des produits canadiens qui sont présents dans les nouveaux médias.

6663   M. GUITON : Oui. Merci. On a vu une partie de cette discussion hier ou avant hier, puis on avait pensé à ça hier soir.

6664   Présentement, on ne participe pas, mais le point qu'on veut faire sur cette discussion, premièrement, on avait l'impression que les témoins devant vous avaient suggéré que c'était très facile, il faut payer $ 35 ou quelque chose comme ça, puis faire le catch-up et tout est beau.

6665   Ce n'est pas comme ça du tout. C'est très compliqué parce qu'il y a plusieurs parties dans la chaîne de distribution. Le projet en question peut être coupé. La codification doit rester avec la programmation. Alors, c'est une façon de le faire. C'est très complexe. C'est une opportunité, un projet qu'on pense qu'il y a possibilité de succès là-dedans.

6666   Mais il y a d'autres aussi. Il y a d'autres possibilités. On n'avait pas remarqué si vous avez discuté, parce qu'on n'a pas suivi toutes vos audiences jusqu'à date, le côté de PPM. Je ne sais pas comment on dit PPM en français, par exemple.

6667   MME ROSSIER : PPM.

6668   M. GUITON : PPM. Bon!

--- Laughter

6669   M. GUITON : Le PPM, c'est une façon de mesurer les auditoires, et c'est en marche maintenant dans le marché francophone au Canada, et ça va être installé dans le marché anglais cette année, je pense.

6670   Si vous me permettez, je vais juste demander à Stan de vous expliquer comment ça peut... si tout le monde participe. Encore, c'est une question de complexité parce qu'il y a plusieurs parties là-dedans, mais si tout le monde peut participer, on peut suivre le contenu, on peut avoir une idée très claire du niveau d'usage de ce contenu.

6671   Stan, would you like to just --

6672   MR. STAPLE: Okay. Thanks, Steve.

6673   Yes, right, PPM actually does permit the measuring of online TV viewing right now in the province of Quebec among francophones. So online TV viewing is actually included in the total audience to the program that is published in the overnights and that will be introduced in the English, the rest of Canada, starting in the next broadcast year, in September 2009.

6674   Now, it's very complicated and not necessarily every single program that's available online will be encoded but there is a possibility -- technically it is possible to do.

6675   In terms of dealing with a lot of the independent Canadian productions or content that might receive funding, there is a problem with the granularity of the system in the sense that currently the Quebec television market is measured with 800 households and that was only going to permit catcher viewing of programs of 500,000 or large numbers.

6676   Content that's only viewed by small numbers would not be captured by a PPM system. For that you would need something like a comScore or perhaps even to look at server data.

6677   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Oui. Peut-être, Monsieur Guiton, ça serait intéressant de voir si vous avez... vous pourriez nous envoyer un avis écrit d'ici le 23 sur des moyens de mesure...

6678   M. GUITON : Oui.

6679   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : ...que vous considérez seraient les plus aptes à nous permettre de suivre le contenu canadien dans les nouveaux médias, que ce soit le ISAN, que ce soit le PPM ou tout autre outil, parce que c'est une réflexion importante pour le CRTC.

6680   M. GUITON : Avec plaisir.

6681   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Et ma dernière question, Monsieur le Président.

6682   Tantôt, monsieur Billinger a mentionné que lors du bloc d'Obama, vous avez utilisé toute la largeur de bande ou à peu près disponible pour permettre à vos auditeurs d'échanger avec vous sur la visite de monsieur Obama.

6683   Est-ce qu'on va manquer de largeur de bande? Est-ce que c'est un défi aussi auquel on devra faire face avec l'utilisation de plus en plus grande par les radiodiffuseurs et par toute sorte d'autres producteurs de la bande?

6684   MR. BILLINGER: That's a great question and there is not a simple answer to it. We didn't use all of our bandwidth. What we used was we put in a cap, a technical cap on how much bandwidth we serve based on what we can afford. Worldwide this happens and it's happened twice. The last time it happened it was actually a worldwide issue and that was when Barack Obama's inauguration occurred.

6685   When his inauguration occurred, all over the world, including the CBC, entered into specific commercial discussion with Akamai, which is the bandwidth provider for most of streaming worldwide, and negotiated with them what each of the broadcasters worldwide were going to get, simply because Akamai's view was that so many people were going to be interested in watching this on new media platforms that it would bring down the worldwide streaming infrastructure.

6686   So on that particular day it was a second example of a similar thing where we had to have a negotiated cap to how much bandwidth we were going to be allocated to stream the Ottawa visit.

6687   It speaks to something that we hear about a lot, which is, you know, that bandwidth and distribution in the new media spaces is infinite. It clearly is not infinite. It's not infinite for the bandwidth providers, for the distributors that you enter into commercial discussions with and so forth. It's not like a water tap that we just turn on and start putting our service out. So we're very conscious of it and we're very exposed to commercial discussions with people in terms of how we put the services out.

6688   I didn't want to mislead you. It wasn't that we certainly got tapped out on our bandwidth. We actually had a commercial limit that we were provided to serve this stuff to Canadians.

6689   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Est-ce que vous avez des solutions? Est-ce qu'il y a des solutions?

6690   MR. BILLINGER: If Barack Obama would cease being so popular, I think that would be a --

--- Laughter

6691   MR. BILLINGER: You know, it's kind of interesting because one thing that it's telling us very clearly is that new media does many things extremely well. What it doesn't do is those historic single events that broadcasting has always done, you know, where everybody on the face of the planet is tuning into one thing at one time.

6692   THE CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt you? We're going to have a net neutrality and we will talk about these issues.

6693   MR. BILLINGER: Yes.

6694   THE CHAIRPERSON: So in the interest of time and others. It's a fascinating issue. I want to hear your views but it's not really germane to today.

6695   MR. BILLINGER: Okay.

6696   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER : Alors, c'est tout, Monsieur le Président. Merci.

6697   THE CHAIRPERSON: Before I pass you on to my colleague Mr. Morin, just on the measurements that madame Poirier raised.

6698   You missed the import of ISAN. We wanted to know how much of the traffic over the net is Canadian. That, PPM won't tell us. That's what ISAN will if everybody uses ISAN. That's what the whole import of that discussion was.

6699   If there's another way of finding out, obviously, I'd love to hear about it but that's what we wanted to know because if you look at the end of the day, you and others suggest that we impose a levy on ISPs for being quasi-BDUs. In order to do that we have to figure out how much Canadian content they actually distribute and that's what the ISAN discussion was all about.

6700   Michel?

6701   CONSEILLER MORIN : Oui. Bonjour. Tout d'abord, je dois vous confesser que je suis un abonné fidèle des nouvelles plateformes où Radio-Canada exerce son savoir et ses productions. Sur mon BlackBerry, je reçois tous les jours des dizaines de fils RSS. Sur mon Palm Pilot, avec le système AvantGo, je reçois également CBC, Radio-Canada, toutes les nouvelles. Et finalement, sur mon Zune de Microsoft, je reçois beaucoup de choses de Radio-Canada.

6702   Mais il y a deux produits d'ancrage à mon sens qui manquent à l'appel, c'est « The National » et « Le Téléjournal. » Et je m'explique mal que je puisse recevoir CBS, ABC, NBC, et au Canada, Global, dans leur entièreté, et je ne reçois pas un produit aussi important que le principal bulletin de nouvelles de la télévision de Radio-Canada et de CBC.

6703   Alors, est-ce qu'il y a une raison pour ça?

6704   M. GUITON : Je vais vous passer à Geneviève, mais je veux juste vous dire avant, merci pour votre fidélité. On l'apprécie bien.

6705   CONSEILLER MORIN : Et votre offre est considérable, je ne le nie pas.

6706   MME ROSSIER : Sur l'offre en baladodiffusion, on a, cet automne sur Radio-Canada, beaucoup augmenté, en fait, l'offre en baladodiffusion. Il faut comprendre aussi que la baladodiffusion est un mode de consommation quand même moins populaire dans le marché francophone que dans le marché anglophone. Mais on a fait cette augmentation et on a mis, je crois, tous les bulletins de radio, et caetera, moins d'émissions de télévision pour les raisons qu'on connaît au niveau des droits et de la lourdeur de la bande passante.

6707   Ceci dit...

6708   CONSEILLER MORIN : Mais « Le Téléjournal » et « The National », il n'y a pas question de droits là.

6709   MME ROSSIER : Il peut y avoir dans certaines ententes avec nos agences qui fournissent le visuel, il peut y avoir certaines ententes dans lesquelles on a le droit d'utiliser ces produits-là à la télévision mais pas nécessairement sur Internet, en baladodiffusion. On peut les utiliser...

6710   CONSEILLER MORIN : Mais est-ce que c'est la raison?

6711   MME ROSSIER : C'est probablement une des raisons. Je vais regarder plus profondément pourquoi « Le Téléjournal » n'est pas là, mais à partir de ce que je sais, ça pourrait être une des raisons, parce que les droits, c'est compliqué.

6712   On acquiert des droits pour aller en direct. Par exemple, RDI est constamment en direct sur radio-canada.ca. Pour faire du catch-up, donc, de l'écoute en différé, ce n'est pas nécessairement les mêmes droits dont on a besoin, et pour offrir quelque chose en baladodiffusion, c'est possiblement une autre catégorie de droits, et c'est ça qui est toute la complexité dans cette histoire de droits.

6713   Alors, je vais vérifier pourquoi « Le Téléjournal » n'est pas là, et je suis entièrement d'accord avec vous que ce serait une bonne idée que « Le Téléjournal » soit, bien sûr, offert en baladodiffusion.

6714   CONSEILLER MORIN : Maintenant, on est ici, vous avez plaidé la cause...

6715   MR. BILLINGER: Excusez-moi. Would you like me to answer in regards to "The National"?

6716   CONSEILLER MORIN : Oui. I look everyday at "The Issue."

6717   MR. BILLINGER: M'hmm.

6718   COMMISSIONER MORIN: It's a part of "The National" but not the whole "National" newscast.

6719   MR. BILLINGER: I'll give you a simple answer on this one. It will be and very shortly. I probably get asked more times at work than I am asked here today and probably more vociferously why it's not on air.

6720   To be fair, our infrastructure to deliver podcasts within the CBC was primarily audio-focused because that's really where the initial uptake was taken and we've had some real work to do to figure out how to get video in quality in a regular and sustainable way to Apple in particular. So we're working on that.

6721   It's also part of a news renewal, which is a process which is happening within the CBC itself, to take the focus away from news which happens very late in the day, at 10 o'clock, and make it available to everyone throughout the day. So as part of that news renewal process, we fully intend to get all of our news material online as quickly as possible.

6722   The final thing is it is really a substantive rights issue for us. So we're in the process of working that out. None of that's an excuse. By the time I see you the next time it will be on, I will guarantee it.

6723   COMMISSIONER MORIN: Good!

6724   MR. BILLINGER: Now, you have to turn all your devices off.

6725   THE CHAIRPERSON: The 27th is when you will be here next time, so we'll remind you.

--- Laughter

6726   MR. BILLINGER: As long as it's not tomorrow, okay?

6727   CONSEILLER MORIN : On est ici, évidemment, aussi pour une question de financement. Vous plaidez la cause d'un nouveau fonds.

6728   Est-ce que vous avez fait une enquête au niveau de ce qu'en penseraient les consommateurs? Parce que le fonds dont on parle, c'est quand même un fonds qui pourrait être de l'ordre de $ 100 millions, donc, de $ 1.05 par mois par abonné à travers le Canada.

6729   Est-ce que, à ce niveau-là... je regarde le financement de Radio-Canada. Ça ne vous a pas empêché de vous déployer sur toutes ces plateformes-là. Vous avez déjà un financement à la hauteur... si on prend non seulement le financement public, mais aussi les droits et la publicité, vous avez un budget de plus de $ 1 milliard et demi. C'est un budget qui est équivalent à plus de 600 radios commerciales au pays.

6730   Alors, il y a quand même des défis à relever au niveau du sans-fil. Au niveau des réseaux Internet, on n'est pas les premiers de classe à travers le monde. Et là, on voudrait « lever peut-être » une contribution obligatoire pour les consommateurs. Est-ce que vous avez demandé un peu aux consommateurs ce qu'ils en pensaient de ça?

6731   M. GUITON : Premièrement, non, on n'a pas fait un sondage avec les consommateurs. Mais je pense qu'il y a plusieurs niveaux pour répondre à votre question.

6732   Premièrement, je pense qu'il y a une question d'égalité pour les BDU, les EDR. Si on trouve de plus en plus que la vérité, c'est que les ISP continuent de participer dans le système comme les autres EDR, est-ce que c'est une question juste de ne pas demander une contribution des providers? Essentiellement, ils offrent exactement la même chose. La fonctionnalité est presque la même chose, et de plus en plus, les Canadiens vont là-bas, online, pour consommer les vidéos.

6733   Premièrement, c'est notre question, une égalité envers les politiques du système.

6734   Deuxièmement, on trouve que, en effet, c'est vrai, on entend tout le temps qu'on reçoit beaucoup d'argent. Mais le problème pour tous les radiodiffuseurs de continuer d'avancer nos services, il faut participer online. Il n'y a pas de choix.

6735   Présentement, comme on avait dit au début, il n'y pas moyen de le faire d'une façon où on génère assez de revenu pour couvrir les coûts. On se trouve dans une situation où notre business traditionnel souffre maintenant, comme vous le savez très bien. Mais en plus, il faut aller dans un domaine où il n'y a pas de revenu.

6736   Même si on a de l'argent du gouvernement et on a significativement d'argent de publicité, il y a un manque. Il y a un trou dans toute cette histoire, mais il faut participer. Quand même, c'est notre problème, et c'est pour cette raison qu'on a toujours dit... c'est vrai qu'on a changé notre position un peu aujourd'hui, mais on a toujours dit que les fonds sont nécessaires si le CRTC croit qu'il faut que les radiodiffuseurs participent dans les nouveaux médias.

6737   C'est notre position, et relativement au revenu, si je me souviens bien, le revenu brut total pour les ISP est $ 5 milliards. Un fonds raisonnable, ce n'est pas quelque chose qui... bien, c'est raisonnable relativement aux autres EDR.

6738   CONSEILLER MORIN : À titre de diffuseur public, est-ce que vous avez accès aux fonds qui ont été créés dans le domaine des nouveaux médias, des médias interactifs, comme le Fonds de Bell, comme le Fonds de Téléfilm, comme le fonds du Fonds canadien de télévision, comme le Fonds de Quebecor? Est-ce que vous avez accès à ça?

6739   M. GUITON : C'est les producteurs indépendants qui y ont accès, mais indirectement, on utilise ces fonds, oui.

6740   CONSEILLER MORIN : Parce que je pense que Quebecor, par exemple, vous avez déjà été financé dans certaines productions par le Fonds Quebecor?

6741   MME ROSSIER : Oui.

6742   CONSEILLER MORIN : Donc, on a déjà, au niveau des fonds, quand même quelque chose comme plus de $ 30 millions dans des fonds qui sont déjà disponibles. On a le Fonds canadien de télévision.

6743   Je me demande jusqu'à quel point si, par exemple, la question des droits d'auteur était réglée -- on ne le sait pas, peut-être qu'un jour ce sera réglé -- est-ce que vraiment l'offre canadienne est vraiment si défavorisée sur les nouvelles plateformes avec tout cet argent qui est déjà disponible et peut-être d'autres qui viendront, indépendamment du nouveau fonds que vous recherchez?

6744   MR. BILLINGER: If I could answer this because this comes up all the time. I think what we're trying to say is that the overwhelming proportion of that funding which is currently available is, in my mind, legacy targeted, i.e., in support of on-air shows. It's very show focused.

6745   So we've had an interesting conversation around PPM and ISAN and if that's enforced on the industry, we would be expected to put that in place. There would be no available funding for the CBC as a broadcaster to put that in place.

6746   Let me give you a perfect example of some content that's near and dear to my heart. We've had discussions over the last year with Canadian Film and with NFB about building a hulu-like service, an on-demand video service which all of the digitized content in their libraries could be made available, independent film. There's no source of funding in Canada for that. It's not show oriented. It's not related to television programs that have been broadcast where there are licences. And if we decided to do that, we would all have to find funding on our own to do it.

6747   So those things that we do as a broadcaster: put in place measurement systems, put in place a portal for the distribution of independent content, put in place promotion, social networking tools, most blogged, most commented, universal media players, everything that you love about cbc.ca, short of the content itself, is not fundable in Canada. There's a very, very, very small amount of funding available, probably less than $2 million.

6748   So it's great if you want to see extensions of shows on air, not so great if you want to see a robust broadcast-like activity in the new media space.

6749   MME ROSSIER : Si je peux rajouter là-dessus. Moi, je pense que radio-canada.ca, on fait un excellent travail au niveau de notre site national, et on a les chiffres qui montrent qu'on a 23 pour cent de pénétration du marché, et caetera.

6750   Là où on fait un bon travail avec les moyens qu'on a mais où on pourrait faire plus, c'est dans les régions. Dans les régions ou les francophones hors Québec, pour eux, souvent, Radio-Canada, ce n'est pas juste une source de nouvelles ou de divertissement, mais c'est un outil de survie, et le Web se prête particulièrement bien à un rôle dans un rôle local, dans un rôle régional, de devenir le point d'ancrage pour les francophones d'une région ou d'une autre.

6751   On n'a pas présentement les moyens de pousser ça au maximum, et c'est quelque chose qui, moi personnellement, me fait de la peine parce que j'ai passé la majorité de ma vie comme francophone hors Québec, et je suis convaincue, très profondément convaincue que Radio-Canada a un rôle à jouer dans le Web au niveau régional et qu'on pourrait améliorer nos sites, qui sont déjà très populaires, mais qui pourraient très bien être améliorés et jouer encore plus un rôle d'engagement entre les citoyens et le diffuseur public.

6752   Ça pourrait être quelque chose de vraiment phénoménal si on avait les moyens d'aller jusqu'au bout de cet exercice-là, donc, plus de contenu audiovidéo affiché sur les sites, plus de mises à jour, plus d'engagement avec les citoyens. Il y a vraiment là quelque chose à côté de quoi on passe présentement, malheureusement, et avec un peu d'espoir, si on pouvait avoir plus de moyens pour le faire, je crois qu'on pourrait faire une vraie différence sur la francophonie hors Québec en région.

6753   CONSEILLER MORIN : Dernière question. C'est simplement une petite remarque. Ça fait suite aux propos du Président von Finckenstein et de monsieur Katz.

6754   Depuis le début, j'ai soulevé spécifiquement un document qui a été déposé aux audiences et dont l'auteur n'apparaît pas, mais c'est l'ordonnance par packet, le « Deep Packet Inspection and Canadian Content. »

6755   Est-ce que vous avez lu ce document-là de 26 pages?

6756   M. GUITON : Je ne l'ai pas lu. Je ne pense pas qu'on l'a lu.

6757   CONSEILLER MORIN : Il n'y a pas de problème.

6758   Vous savez que les réseaux risquent d'être congestionnés éventuellement, que déjà, les fournisseurs de services Internet... les dumb pipes dont on parle ne sont peut-être pas aussi dumb qu'on pense. Il y a beaucoup de choses qui se passent, et donc, il y a un ordre, des priorités qu'on peut donner aux différents contenus, et ce document-là propose des solutions de prioriser le contenu canadien dans les tuyaux de l'Internet.

6759   J'aimerais savoir, vous autres, la CBC/Radio-Canada, comment vous... qu'est-ce que ça vous dit ce document-là, les solutions qui sont proposées, dans vos commentaires éventuellement écrits?

6760   M. GUITON : Notre réplique, oui, on va examiner de très proche ce document, Monsieur.

6761   CONSEILLER MORIN : Merci.

6762   M. GUITON : Merci.

6763   THE CHAIRPERSON: Tim, I believe you have some questions.

6764   COMMISSIONER DENTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

6765   By the way, there will be questions later on on Deep or Superficial Packet Inspections but not now.

6766   In your brief you said that we, meaning you, have come to the conclusion that the only reasonable and effective funding approach is to require a contribution from ISPs, and by necessary implication, some kind of tax or whatever on people using the internet.

6767   I wonder whether in the ruminations of the CBC, with the goal of supplementing your parliamentary appropriation, has consideration ever been given to measures that would allow the CBC to raise money directly from its viewership or listenership?

6768   MR. GUITON: I'm sorry, if you could just repeat. In our ruminations with government, do you mean have we had discussions with government?

6769   COMMISSIONER DENTON: No. Internal to the organization, has it ever been contemplated by the CBC that it should approach its listenership or viewership directly for monetary support?

6770   MR. GUITON: I am not aware of any specific proposal.

6771   COMMISSIONER DENTON: And do you consider that the legal impediments in the way of, say, a tax on ISPs are more serious or less serious than attempting to raise money from the public directly or from your viewership directly?

6772   MR. GUITON: I am not sure if there are any legal impediments to us raising money from our viewership. We are aware that there are a number of legal views filed with respect to the ISP contribution. We have not provided any comment on those and we have not submitted any written examination of those legal views.

6773   All we've done in this context of making the proposal that an ISP contribution seems to be the most effective way is, as I was saying earlier -- if I may -- I know the Chairman doesn't want me to talk about something that we're no longer supporting.

6774   But the logic was we didn't start with the notion of an ISP contribution. What we started with was let's look at the system that exists in the traditional BDU space, the traditional broadcasting space. Can we apply the Commission's regulatory tools to the online space?

6775   It was our view that more funding is required. We've always held that view but it wasn't our view that specific people would be responsible for that funding. We thought we'd try and just apply the existing tools that the Commission uses in a traditional broadcast marketplace to raise funds and to make contributions.

6776   We got quite far down that road, we thought, and then once we started to examine it in full, it didn't seem to work. It was actually too complex. The enforceability aspect was too complex. The number of parties participating was too complex.

6777   So, in appearing before you today, our conclusion is that the contribution via an ISP is the simplest way to go.

6778   We have not looked at the legality of trying to raise money directly from consumers as a comparison point, to answer your question.

6779   COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank you very much, that does answer it.

6780   THE CHAIRPERSON: Steve, as usual, you are the clean-up man.

6781   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I feel more like the last guy on the relay race.

6782   Thank you very much, and good morning. I am very much enjoying having a major player of the broadcast community before us in this hearing.

6783   I have three areas of questions, and I will try to be very succinct, in the interests of time.

6784   Are any of your present online streaming products offered in high-definition at this point?

6785   MR. BILLINGER: No.

6786   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: The reason being...?

6787   MR. BILLINGER: We haven't figured it out yet.

6788   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: What does that mean?

6789   MR. BILLINGER: It's simple, it's a very complex chain right now --

6790   I will speak on the English side.

6791   Actually, getting access to the video and audio content from within the plant is quite complex, and we do it in many different ways. If you think about traditional broadcasting, really, the waterstream flows to master control and then to uplink, and getting it into master control and uplink is quite complex, depending on whether it comes from mobile trucks, depending on whether we are shooting it ourselves or whether we use third party vendors, you know, for hockey and so forth and so on.

6792   We have actually built a kind of custom system for the different genres of content to get access to that signal, most of the time to the presentation booth, but not always. Many times it is direct into their content area. The HD signal doesn't exist there yet.

6793   We are really just trying to map the flow and figure out what is the best way to get content there.

6794   The other simple answer is, as we have said many times, it is time spent doing what? Time spent doing what, even if looking at video and audio streaming on CBC is not the majority of the time spent. So HD viewing would be the smallest portion of it.

6795   We are very, very aware of it, and we had commercial discussions with Joost originally, who do offer an HD version of their signal, to try to understand exactly how that works.

6796   And part of our interest in Current TV Canada is that they offer that signal in HD and they can help us on the learning curve.

6797   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Great.

6798   Just as a personal curiosity question, are we ultimately going to 16-by-9 as an industry?

6799   MR. BILLINGER: My quick answer is, I don't know. There is a lot --

6800   You hate the word "complexity", right?

6801   Because there is so much content in the internet space that is in the form of an overlay, a ticker or something like that, and because so much of it is not in our control, particularly overlap advertising, it really means that all of these players have to operate, at least, two complete systems, one that is 16-by-9 and one that is 4-by-3.

6802   So we have all of the same issues that we used to have around closed captioning and on-air tickers, and it simply just hasn't vetted out yet, and it's not our position to take the lead on that.

6803   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: That's great. Thank you.

6804   MS ROSSIER: I am totally in agreement with Steve on this one. We had the same reflections.

6805   What we have been trying to do -- and we have done it a few times in the last year -- is just to augment, constantly, the quality of the video that we are offering, boosting it up to the best of our capacity.

6806   I think we are pretty much in the best category of the business right now there, but we are not offering the HD yet.

6807   But it does make a difference. People appreciate -- people are more and more looking for something on the web that will resemble what they can see on the TV.

6808   MR. BILLINGER: A quick follow-up is, of course, when we syndicate our content into something like Apple Canada, that is at HD quality.

6809   We can do it, but we just can't do it uniformly across the system right now.

6810   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay. Thank you.

6811   THE CHAIRPERSON: In the interests of time, can I ask you to be short in your questions?

6812   I have already given you 45 more minutes than I have given anybody else. There is a time point where we run out of time, so please be precise in your answers.

6813   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Earlier this week we heard from the content production community, the independent producers, and, as well, we had a presentation from the CFTPA, and one of the consistent themes we have been hearing, keeping in mind that we are in a state of massive transition with respect to program and content creation, and we understand that --

6814   The complaint that we have been hearing over and over again is that broadcasters feel compelled, because they are trying to explore a new business model, to make sure that they retain as many rights as possible, but the content community is saying that, while they negotiate the rights, they frequently don't use them and the digital rights for new media languish.

6815   The CFTPA came to us with the solution of sort of a "use it or lose it" scenario, where there is a window where those rights can be suspended and held by the broadcaster, but after a point in time they evaporate.

6816   What is your feeling about that?

6817   MR. GUITON: I am actually going to ask Steve to respond to that question.

6818   MR. BILLINGER: That's interesting, because the way it is usually put to us -- and I will try to be really quick -- it's like "Don't use it."

6819   I don't actually understand what people mean when they say "Don't use it."

6820   If you look at our output, our entire prime time made with independent producers is online in one form or another, our entire radio service, our entire news service, and almost all of our documentary service.

6821   So I am not sure what anyone -- we syndicate on their behalf. We collect revenues for them on their behalf. We were very successful with Apple, and we have passed that funding directly on to the independent producers who have made programs with us.

6822   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: I don't think that these comments were directed at the CBC, they were made in general. I am just trying to get a broadcaster's view --

6823   MR. BILLINGER: I understand, but -- quickly, what I am trying to get at is -- and you might want to ask them -- "How would you like to see it used?"

6824   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Okay. My last question is in the area of advertising revenue. We are all exploring the notions of funding models, but my preoccupation is on where the money is coming from to pay for things.

6825   In the advertising business, over the last 50 years, the relationship between the advertising community, the ad agencies, and the broadcasting community has become very established and understood, and trusted. In particular, the rating services that were used in broadcast, like Nielsen's BBM and so on, became really trusted third party entities that really put a monetary value or an eyeball value that the advertiser could trust.

6826   I am wondering if you could tell me what you are seeing with respect to the emergence of rating services that are other than the Google Adsense kind of formula, or that which comes from your own stats, from your web counts alone, which are not really third party enough for a lot of advertisers.

6827   MR. GUITON: I will ask Stan to have a crack at that.

6828   MR. STAPLE: You would be talking about comScore in Canada, which is the one company that measures internet usage. It is the currency. Its methodology is evolving. I think it would be fair to say that there are many who are critical of the data that it is producing.

6829   It is a very complex methodology. To track internet usage is very difficult. You have different platforms. Prime time for the internet tends to be during the day, which means that you have to somehow figure out how to get into people's workplaces to measure.

6830   Of course, there is an unlimited number of sites, basically, that are being tracked. So even with a panel of over 25,000, you have granularity problems.

6831   It's evolving. It's very complex. The IAB has recently announced a tripartite meeting to try to improve the measurement system in Canada, so that is something that will be happening soon.

6832   I would think that the other thing that is important is cost, is money. How much money are clients of comScore willing to spend?

6833   I think it is pretty clear that there is a lot more money spent on the measurement of television than there is on the measurement of the internet. So I don't think it is fair to expect that the internet measurement system is going to be as good as the television measurement system, which has also evolved.

6834   I think that is an important consideration, as well.

6835   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: The economic crisis that we are in right now is distorting everything, and I know it is difficult to put it aside, but if we were not in this situation right now, and back into more normal times, from what I had been seeing, there had been the toe going in the bathtub, with advertisers experimenting with ways to use new media, not so much as a mainstream strategy, but very much an extension of their more core strategies.

6836   Now, with that in mind, how much longer do you think it is going to take for new media strategies to become core to major advertisers?

6837   The second question is, with new media offering the opportunity for narrowcasting, does this present an opportunity for other types of advertisers, who wouldn't normally go into mass media, to start looking at some new revenues?

6838   I am thinking, also, about local advertisers, who wouldn't normally, because of audience excess, be able to afford or rationalize the old broadcast advertising model.

6839   MR. BILLINGER: Let me take a quick stab at this one, and then I will pass it over to Geneviève.

6840   Let's look at something like Hulu in the United States, which we know a little bit about. Their declared cost to build that service, to date, is about $110 million U.S. So call that $125 million or $130 million.

6841   It's not break-even. They don't see break-even in the foreseeable future.

6842   But, even still, that amount compared to NBC's revenues from advertising in general -- it's a drop in the bucket.

6843   Two questions. When would Hulu even be able to make money, given the cost that it takes to create a service of that nature?

6844   Two, when would something like Hulu catch up to NBC as a network?

6845   Who knows. It isn't going to be in the short term, that's for sure.

6846   The second part of the question is very easy. We do believe that there is some opportunity in local, regional and integrated, but we already see that that money piles in behind activity which is not broadcasting. It is a paid-for search, it's classified in its display manner. So the bulk of that $1.2 billion is going to those areas.

6847   When will it move to video and audio streaming? We don't know.

6848   MS ROSSIER: My answer would be the same, I don't know when it is going to happen. We hope soon.

6849   We are doing, and I know a number of people who are doing studies with ads, trying to measure if you have something going on TV and on the web at the same time, and what is the best way that you can actually augment your impact, and so forth.

6850   We have one study like that going on on our side with a client, and I am aware of some studies going on which are trying to capture what is the perfect equilibrium between putting something on TV and an ad on the internet, what should it be exactly.

6851   We don't have that knowledge yet. We are working on it, and we are trying, but we are still at the stage where we are trying to gather the information.

6852   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you, that ends my questioning.

6853   THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your presentation. I very much appreciate the honesty of your answers.

6854   When I was a judge, I always said to people appearing before me that anybody who makes a concession automatically increases their credibility, and your admission that you have changed your views, et cetera, has definitely increased your credibility.

6855   Let me leave you with one thought, and this comes back to the question that I asked you at the beginning, what are the implications of new media, in your view.

6856   Geneviève said, "It allows us to dialogue with the audience, rather than just presenting shows."

6857   A follow-up on that: What are the implications for you as a public broadcaster? Are they different than for private broadcasters?

6858   I don't know, but I would be interested in your views. So, in your written reply, if you could address that point, I would appreciate it.

6859   MR. GUITON: We will.

6860   THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We will take a 10-minute break.

--- Upon recessing at 1043

--- Upon resuming at 1056

6861   LA SECRÉTAIRE: Nous allons maintenant procéder avec la présentation de l'Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, l'ADISQ, pour faire sa présentation.

6862   Madame Drouin comparaît pour l'ADISQ et elle nous présentera sa collègue. Vous aurez ensuite 15 minutes pour votre présentation.

PRESENTATION

6863   Mme DROUIN: Alors, bonjour. Au nom des producteurs indépendants d'enregistrement sonore du Québec, je tiens d'abord à vous remercier de nous recevoir ce matin. Je suis Solange Drouin, vice-présidente aux Affaires publiques et directrice générale de l'ADISQ.

6864   M'accompagnent aujourd'hui, comme à l'habitude, Annie Provencher, directrice de la radiodiffusion et de la recherche à l'ADISQ et, tel que vous le verrez dans le texte, il y a une partie du texte qui est réservée au président de l'ADISQ, monsieur Claude Larivée.

6865   Je dois excuser son absence, il souhaitait vraiment être là étant donné l'importance du dossier, mais il a dû rester à la maison ce matin pour soigner sa fille terrassée par la grippe. Alors, il s'excuse et nous fait confiance.

6866   Donc, dans notre brève présentation d'aujourd'hui, nous allons produire des arguments additionnels à ceux contenus dans notre mémoire. Au sein de notre organisation, ces arguments ont fait l'objet de discussion qui n'avait pas encore eu lieu au moment où nous avons déposé notre mémoire. Ils constituent aujourd'hui une position très largement consensuelle au sein de notre milieu.

6867   Je dois néanmoins signaler que deux membres de notre Conseil d'administration: messieurs Serge Sasseville et Pierre Marchand s'en sont dissocié. Tous deux sont des représentants d'entreprises détenues par Québécor Média.

6868   Nous nous prononcerons aujourd'hui en faveur d'une intervention réglementaire mesurée, constructive, mais néanmoins résolue de la part du CRTC dans le champ des plate-formes médiatiques, neo médiatiques, pardon.

6869   Mais, auparavant, permettez-nous de situer notre intervention dans le contexte de la transformation radicale que vit l'Industrie canadienne de l'enregistrement sonore depuis l'émergence de ces plate-formes, soit depuis les années quatre-vingt-dix.

6870   Au cours des présentes audiences, on a beaucoup parlé ici du cas de la télévision. Sans vouloir diminuer en rien l'impact des nouvelles plate-formes sur cette dernière, je dois néanmoins rappeler le statut tout particulier de l'industrie musicale dans votre présente réflexion.

6871   À l'heure actuelle, parmi toutes les industries culturelles, l'industrie de la musique est, de loin, celle dont la structure et le modèle d'affaires ont été le plus profondément transformés par le déploiement des nouvelles plate-formes.

6872   Parce que nous avons été les premiers à être touchés et aussi ceux qui l'ont été au plus haut degré, nous sommes un peu, pour l'ensemble des milieux culturels, ce que les économistes appellent un «indicateur avancé», un éclaireur bien involontaire en quelque sorte.

6873   Qu'on me comprenne bien; je ne veux pas dire que nous sommes timorés devant le déploiement des nouvelles plate-formes. Après le choc des premiers sites de téléchargements illégaux, l'industrie de la musique a rapidement appris à découvrir l'autre visage des nouveaux médias.

6874   Aujourd'hui, un nombre toujours croissant de plate-formes neo médiatiques légales s'ajoutent aux outils dont nous disposons pour développer et promouvoir la carrière des artistes canadiens de la chanson.

6875   Je veux donc être très claire, nous du milieu de la musique sommes des utilisateurs, des partenaires et de fervents promoteurs de ces nouvelles plate-formes, du moment, bien sûr qu'elles s'inscrivent dans un cadre légal.

6876   À ce sujet, on doit se réjouir de voir que la part de marché des ventes numériques au Québec soit passée à plus de sept pour cent au cours de la dernière année. C'est cependant beaucoup moins que la moyenne mondiale qui, elle, se situe aux alentours de 20 pour cent.

6877   Les positions que nous allons défendre aujourd'hui sont donc des positions pour un déploiement de plus en plus dynamique des nouvelles plate-formes de radiodiffusion.

6878   Nous voulons que la créativité de nos artistes rencontre celle des développeurs et qu'au bout du compte, les amateurs de musique aient accès à une forme musicale canadienne de plus en plus riche. Nous ne voulons pas freiner les nouvelles plate-formes.

6879   Cependant, nous croyons absolument nécessaire d'en baliser le développement. Pourquoi? Parce que nous avons appris du passé. Nous savons que les balises réglementaires instaurées dans la radio traditionnelle ont été un élément important dans le développement des carrières d'artistes québécois.

6880   Elles les ont aidés à conquérir plus de 40 pour cent du marché de la vente du disque au Québec, tout en permettant aux radios elles-mêmes d'obtenir de solides assises financières. Pour l'instant, cette réalité ne se transpose pas du tout dans les ventes numériques de musique.

6881   Nous croyons donc que l'instauration de balises réglementaires dans les nouvelles plate-formes de radiodiffusion favorisera le développement harmonieux de notre culture et des entreprises neo médiatiques pour le plus grand bénéfice du public. Et c'est là l'esprit de la position que nous allons vous soumettre maintenant.

6882   La recommandation que nous faisons aujourd'hui au CRTC comporte trois points: le premier concerne la mise en place de ces balises réglementaires auxquelles je viens de faire allusion; le deuxième concerne le statut et la responsabilité des entreprises offrant un service d'accès internet devant un possible encadrement réglementaire des nouvelles plate-formes; et le troisième point porte sur la responsabilité du CRTC lui-même dans la mise en place d'outils de vigi permettant à toutes les parties concernées de développer une base de connaissance commune chiffrée et objective quant au développement des plate-formes neo médiatiques.

6883   Mais dans un premier temps, il importe d'abord de réitérer la légitimité réglementaire du CRTC face au développement des plate-formes internet.

6884   À cet égard, nous invitons le Conseil à prendre connaissance dans votre pochette, pas maintenant, d'avis juridique que nous avons obtenu de l'expert Pierre Trudel et qui se trouve à l'Annexe 1 de notre document d'accompagnement, à la gauche.

6885   Comme vous le savez, monsieur Trudel est professeur titulaire du Centre de recherche en droit public pour la Faculté de droit de l'Université de Montréal, il est un chercheur réputé dans le domaine du Droit des technologies et de l'information et de communication. Son avis ici va dans le même sens que d'autres opinion juridiques produites par d'autres groupes culturels sur le même sujet, notamment monsieur Peter Grant.

6886   Dans son avis, monsieur Trudel établit clairement que la fourniture de service internet est au sens de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion une activité de radiodiffusion et qu'elle s'inscrit donc à l'intérieur des pouvoirs réglementaires du CRTC.

6887   Depuis le moment où il a émis une ordonnance d'exemption relative aux nouveaux médias, le CRTC a adopté une attitude prudente, voir attentiste face au phénomène.

6888   Nous estimons, quant à nous, que la décennie d'abstention réglementaire qui a suivi a été fort longue, mais nous partageons aussi le souhait du Conseil d'intervenir avec discernement dans ce domaine, de façon à préserver la dynamique et la créativité manifeste qui le caractérise.

6889   C'est pourquoi nous sommes en faveur d'une intervention modérée, graduelle, mais néanmoins résolue. L'intervention réglementaire immédiate que nous recommandons vise certains services neo médiatiques légaux offrant une programmation musicale.

6890   Pour fonder notre position, nous avons développé une grille d'analyse fort simple que vous trouverez en Annexe 2 et que je vous invite à consulter en même temps que moi, donc du côté droit de votre pochette.

6891   Il nous semble important de développer de telles grilles pour briser l'effet de confusion qui caractérise souvent le débat sur les nouvelles plate-formes, confusion qui ne mène malheureusement qu'à l'inaction. Notre objectif est de ramener les nouvelles plate-formes à des catégories qui peuvent être appréhendées et gérées.

6892   Notre grille répartit, comme vous le voyez, les services neo médiatiques de radiodiffusion dans quatre groupes. Le premier à gauche en haut, ceux dont le contenu est autogénéré par les utilisateurs; ensuite, en haut à droite, deux dont l'utilisation est interactive -- pardon -- eux ensuite au bas à gauche, ceux dont l'utilisation est semi-interactive et, finalement, en bas à droite et ceux dont l'utilisation est non interactive.

6893   Permettez-moi d'en préciser les termes. Les contenus... les services à contenus autogénérés sont ceux dont le contenu est le fait de leurs utilisateurs individuels qui téléchargent en amont et rendent disponible leur propre sélection de textes, d'images et de fichiers sonores ou vidéos. My Space, Facebook ou U-Tube sont les plus connus de ces services.

6894   Les plate-formes dont l'utilisation est interactive, que certaines appellent aussi non linéaires, permettent à l'usager de définir de façon très précise sa propre expérience d'écoute.

6895   Elles peuvent reposer sur le téléchargement à la pièce comme les services I-tune ou I-Music ou, encore, sur la diffusion à la demande, sans téléchargement au streaming à la demande, comme les services rhapsodie ou poste d'écoute.ca.

6896   Les plate-formes interactives se déclinent en plusieurs sous-groupes et se prêtent à différents modèles d'affaires, achats, abonnements à durée déterminée ou non et toute autre sorte de combinaison.

6897   Les plate-formes dont l'utilisation est semi-interactive quant à elles offrent à l'utilisateur une certaine forme de contrôle en tenant compte de ces choix et de son profil d'écoute pour établir la sélection des pièces musicales qui lui sont offertes. La STFM et Deserve.com sont des exemples notables de ce type de service.

6898   Enfin, les plate-formes dont l'utilisation est non interactive sont des services sonores qui, comme la radio traditionnelle, diffusent en continu sans offrir à l'utilisateur la possibilité de choisir les pièces qu'il écoute ni le moment de leur diffusion. Citons, par exemple, les web radios que sont Bande à part, CKOI, Rock Détente, Rythme-FM et bien d'autres.

6899   L'ADISQ estime que les entreprises qui exploitent actuellement de tels services sonores non interactifs doivent être soumises sans plus tarder aux mêmes obligations réglementaires que les radiodiffuseurs commerciaux traditionnels. Leur offre, en effet, est à un tel point similaire à celle de ces derniers qu'elle doit s'inscrire dans le même cadre législatif et réglementaire.

6900   Notre position à ce sujet est résumée plus en détail à l'Annexe 3 que vous avez, évidemment, encore à droite, que je vous invite à prendre.

6901   Comme vous pouvez le voir, les mesures réglementaires que nous proposons pour favoriser la création et la promotion d'un contenu canadien de radiodiffusion par les nouveaux médias vise, pour l'instant, deux catégories de services.

6902   D'abord, tout service canadien non interactif de programmation musicale exploitée par une entreprise canadienne détenant déjà une licence du CRTC.

6903   Ensuite, tout service canadien non interactif de programmation musicale qui est offert directement au public ou aux abonnés d'un service mobile ou hébergé sur un ou des situés aux canadiens et qui atteint soit un niveau minimal de revenu internet déterminé et/ou un niveau minimal d'achalandage déterminé.

6904   Toute entreprise faisant partie de ces deux catégories de services visés devra s'adresser, selon nous, devrait s'adresser au CRTC... devra adresser au CRTC une demande visant l'obtention d'une licence de radiodiffusion. Le CRTC attribuerait automatiquement des licences à de tels services sur engagement par ceux-ci de respecter un certain nombre de règles.

6905   Je signale qu'il s'agit là d'une procédure un peu similaire que le CRTC a utilisée en l'an 2000, lors de l'attribution de licence aux services de télévision spécialisée numérique et payante de catégorie 2.

6906   Ainsi, tout service faisant partie des deux catégories de services visés dont je viens de parler devra obéir en y apportant certaines adaptations nécessaires, aux mêmes règles que celles imposées à ce jour par le CRTC aux radios commerciales, soit des règles évidemment relatives à la programmation musicale et des règles relatives aux contributions financières.

6907   L'application de ces règles peut être souple et se prête à une variété de scénarios que nous illustrons à la deuxième page de ce document de l'Annexe 3 laquelle je pourrai revenir en détail dans la période de questions, si vous le souhaitez.

6908   Enfin, le calcul des contributions financières au développement des contenus canadiens devra inclure les revenus d'internet attribuables directement aux services non interactifs de programmation musicale.

6909   Ce calcul devra également inclure la portion des revenus d'internet, du site Haute attribuable à l'affluence générée par le service non interactif de programmation musicale.

6910   Nous sommes conscients que l'application de ces règles au contexte neo médiatique nécessitera des adaptations et nous offrons notre collaboration, évidemment, au CRTC, dans la discussion de ces adaptations.

6911   Nous soulignons aussi qu'il s'agir pour le CRTC d'un premier pas dans le champ des nouveaux médias et que cela pourra paver la voie à un examen et à une action plus étendue.

6912   J'aimerais maintenant passer à la deuxième grande recommandation que nous tenons à formuler aujourd'hui et qui concerne le statut et la responsabilité des entreprises offrant un service d'accès internet.

6913   Comme la fourniture d'accès internet est clairement une activité de radiodiffusion au terme de la Loi, le CRTC a pleine et entière juridiction sur les entreprises qui assurent ce service et cette question est au coeur de toute réflexion sur une possible réglementation des nouveaux médias.

6914   Notre réglementation ici encore s'inscrit dans une approche constructive qui tient compte à la fois de la jeunesse de cette industrie, mais aussi de son évolution rapide.

6915   L'ADISQ demande au CRTC -- il y a une coquille ici -- donc CRTC de mettre en place un cadre de diffusion formelle qui favorisera les échanges entre les entreprises offrant un service d'accès internet et le milieu de la production de contenus culturels canadiens.

6916   Ces échanges devront conduire à l'obtention d'une entente entre les deux milieux quant aux obligations auxquelles les entreprises offrant un service d'accès internet consentiront à être soumises.

6917   Pour favoriser la réussite de ces échanges, nous proposons qu'ils aient une échéance de 60 jours. À défaut d'une entente entre les parties à l'intérieur de ce délai, c'est au CRTC qu'il reviendra d'utiliser ses pouvoirs pour mettre en oeuvre les objectifs de la Loi.

6918   Je passe maintenant à la troisième de nos recommandations. Nous croyons que le CRTC, en collaboration avec les parties concernées devrait mettre en place un mécanisme de veille en continu sur les nouvelles plate-formes.

6919   À l'heure actuelle, plusieurs données nous manquent à l'échelle canadienne pour cerner adéquatement le phénomène des nouveaux médias, nous en fournissons un aperçu à l'Annexe 4 que nous vous invitons, évidemment, à consulter. C'est une liste des paramètres de recherche que nous vous proposons.

6920   Nous estimons que la capacité analytique du CRTC combinée à celle des différentes instances concernées permettrait la création d'une base de connaissance objective sur laquelle tous les acteurs concernés pourront s'appuyer, les milieux culturels, les entreprises offrant un service d'accès internet, les développeurs de services neo médiatiques et les autres. Nous nous permettons donc d'en faire la recommandation.

6921   En terminant, nous émettons le voeu que le CRTC soumette dorénavant son ordonnance d'exemption à un calendrier qui nous évitera d'attendre l'année 2019 pour débattre de cette même problématique. Les plate-formes neo médiatiques sont une réalité mouvante et leur progression est an constante accélération. Le CRTC doit impérativement adapter ces façons de faire à cette réalité et accélérer ses processus.

6922   Nous vous remercions de votre attention et répondrons avec plaisir à vos questions.

6923   LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci. Est-ce que vous étiez ici ou est-ce que vous avez écouté par l'internet ou par la TV que nous avons eu l'Association des... The Songwriters Association of Canada?

6924   Mme DROUIN: Non.

6925   LE PRÉSIDENT: Qui nous ont...

6926   Mme DROUIN: Malheureusement, on avait... on n'a pas écouté sur internet, mais on a lu leur mémoire. Nous avons lu leur mémoire.

6927   LE PRÉSIDENT: Vous avez... et vous connaissez la proposition?

6928   Mme DROUIN: Oui. Sur la licence globale? C'est ce que vous entendez?

6929   LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui, exactement, oui, oui. Qu'est-ce que vous pensez de cette approche?

6930   Mme DROUIN: Pour moi, c'est deux questions complètement différentes parce que, licence globale, on parle de droit d'auteur, on parle de... là, on est dans un champ d'activité qui n'est pas la juridiction ici du Conseil.

6931   Alors, pour moi, c'est une solution peut-être avec laquelle je vous dirais pour l'ADISQ, ce n'est pas une solution, en tout cas, qu'on envisage, nous, dans un premier temps.

6932   La licence globale, on pense encore que ce n'est pas la solution. On pense encore qu'il y a des moyens de contrôle qui devraient être mis en place pour gérer les droits d'auteur, mais...

6933   LE PRÉSIDENT: Mais c'est combiné avec... dans leur idée, avec une contribution que les ISP doivent faire aux personnes qui ont les droits d'auteur maintenant.

6934   Mme DROUIN: Oui, mais c'est pour... ce n'est pas du tout une recommandation, une proposition en vertu des pouvoirs ici du Conseil. Et pour nous, c'est différent. Les deux... les deux sont possibles. Les deux aspects sont possibles.

6935   Autant aujourd'hui les radios traditionnelles ont des contributions à payer au titre du développement des contenus canadiens en vertu de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, autant ils paient des droits voisins ou des droits d'auteur en vertu de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur.

6936   Pour nous, c'est deux dossiers complètement différents et la façon de régler les droits d'auteur, c'est une chose -- évidemment, on parlera de la Loi sur le droit d'auteur -- mais, nous, ce qu'on propose, c'est...

6937   Pour moi, ça ne réglerait pas la question qui pourrait être ici établie devant vous et dire, bien, écoutez, en vertu de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, il y a des contributions au développement du talent canadien, des contenus, pardon, des contenus canadiens maintenant et ça peut être deux paiements différents et non exclusifs, comme c'est le cas actuellement avec les radios traditionnelles.

6938   LE PRÉSIDENT: Dans votre présentation de ce matin, au paragraphe 24, vous définissez non interactif, non interactif et dans le paragraphe 25, vous suggérez qu'il doit être une même obligation réglementaire que le radiodiffuseur commercial traditionnel?

6939   Mme DROUIN: Oui.

6940   LE PRÉSIDENT: Les exemples que vous citez comme... c'est CKOI, Rock Détente et RYTHME, est-ce que leurs programmes sur internet maintenant est différent que leurs programmes sur les ondes hertziennes?

6941   Mme DROUIN: Dans certain cas, ce que... à moins que je sois mal informée, il y a du simul casting carrément. C'est exactement la même programmation.

6942   LE PRÉSIDENT: Oui.

6943   Mme DROUIN: Alors... mais on va y revenir si vous voulez aussi là-dessus parce que même dans ce cas-là, selon moi, il serait important qu'il y ait des obligations, ça n'empêcherait pas les obligations de contribution au développement de talents canadiens.

6944   LE PRÉSIDENT: Non.

6945   Mme DROUIN: Mais il y a d'autres radios qui essaient, essaient d'autres programmations complètement différentes sur internet, mais il y a les deux, donc, simul casting et web radio.

6946   LE PRÉSIDENT: Est-ce que vous êtes ciblée sur la présentation ou sur la contribution?

6947   Mme DROUIN; Mais c'est sûr que si c'est le simul casting, c'est la même programmation musicale.

6948   Donc, les quotas sont respectés des deux côtés, mais il est clair que dans le calcul des recettes publicitaires, les revenus publicitaires qui découlent d'internet ne font pas partie de l'assiette sur laquelle s'applique le calcul du développement des contenus canadiens.

6949   Alors, on dit, pour ce genre de service-là, il faudrait que la réglementation... évidemment, bon, si elle s'applique, de dire que vous devez respecter des quotas et s'ils le font déjà, il n'y aura pas de problème et, en plus, ça nous permettrait au moins d'aller chercher la portion des revenus tirés d'internet pour qu'il y ait un retour à titre de développement de contenus canadiens, que ça fasse partie de l'assiette des revenus.

6950   LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci. Lise, tu as des questions?

6951   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Oui. Merci, monsieur le président. Bonjour, mesdames.

6952   Mme DROUIN: Bonjour.

6953   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: J'avais lu avec attention votre rapport, mais effectivement vous ne présentiez pas dans votre rapport votre position et vous le faites ici en direct.

6954   Mme DROUIN: Oui.

6955   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Alors, il est clair qu'il va falloir aussi digérer une partie des documents que vous nous donnez et on va vous donner l'opportunité peut-être d'aller plus loin dans la présentation en vous posant des questions.

6956   Mme DROUIN: Oui.

6957   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Puis je compte sur mes partenaires pour poursuivre parce qu'il y a beaucoup de nouvelles informations que vous nous donnez, auxquelles on ne pouvait pas s'attendre avant votre présentation.

6958   Dans un premier temps, j'aimerais clarifier. Il y a deux membres qui se dissocient. Il y a combien de membres en tout dans votre conseil d'administration?

6959   Mme DROUIN: Le conseil d'administration, 15... 15 membres du conseil puis au total nous sommes plus de 300 membres.

6960   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Deuxième chose, bon, et vous le dites. Vous le dites dans vos documents, on le lit ici aussi, l'industrie du disque est celle qui a été la plus rapidement touchée par les nouveaux médias. Donc, à votre avis, elle mérite une médecine plus forte et elle mérite une médecine plus rapide que la télédiffusion?

6961   Mme DROUIN: Non, pas du tout. Nous, on se dit que c'est sûr que... pas le CRTC, mais tout le monde des plate-formes neo médiatiques, c'est facile de voir la montagne et d'être un peu... être un peu... de voir que la montagne est tellement haute à monter qu'on n'a pas le courage de commencer à... Si on ne la découpe pas par...

6962   On oublie que la montagne, on peut la monter pas à pas et on se dit que dans le secteur, dans certains secteurs comme la radio, par exemple, on dit que le CRTC, même s'il n'a pas les réponses à toutes les questions pour l'ensemble des services neo médiatiques de radiodiffusion, ça n'empêche en rien le CRTC d'agir ici, maintenant, dans des services qui sont très clairement évidemment de la radiodiffusion et, bon, qui sont pour nous de façon... et qui, en plus, emploient... ont une programmation qui ressemble beaucoup à celle de la radiodiffusion traditionnelle.

6963   Donc, on se dit le CRTC peut se sentir très rapidement légitimé d'agir dans le monde, tout de suite, de la programmation musicale, de la musique et, bon, ça adonne bien, c'est le secteur, selon nous, qui est le plus durement touché.

6964   Donc, c'est peut-être plus pour dire au CRTC qu'il y a... en plus, peut-être que ça fait plus de temps, peut-être que ce service-là justement dans le monde neo médiatique il y a les services de radio, ça fait plus longtemps qu'on y pense peut-être que les autres, l'évolution est quand même entamée plus qu'ailleurs, lors on se dit, bien c'est le CRTC.

6965   Vous pouvez agir maintenant puis en agissant, bien, vous allez ré-équilibrer un peu le déséquilibre qu'a créé... qu'ont créé ces... qu'a créé les services neo médiatiques par rapport à l'industrie de la musique qui est un partenaire important du système canadien de radiodiffusion.

6966   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Il y a un groupe, je ne me rappelle pas lequel, qui est venu nous voir en nous disant que, effectivement, il y avait un danger sur le web.

6967   Mme DROUIN: Oui.

6968   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: La radiodiffusion comme telle, à un moment donné, ne respecte plus les règles de contenus canadiens si elles ne sont pas assujetties aux mêmes règles.

6969   Mme DROUIN: Hum-hum! Tout à fait.

6970   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: C'est ce que vous nous dites aujourd'hui aussi.

6971   Mme DROUIN: Tout à fait, oui.

6972   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Et c'est pour ça que vous voulez avoir des licences?

6973   Mme DROUIN: Oui. Mais on comprend très bien que les licences dans ce cas-là, comme vous l'avez fait, là, puis c'est comme je l'ai dit dans la présentation, vous l'avez fait dans le cas des services spécialisés et payants en 2000 pour les services numériques de catégorie 2. Le CRTC, dans la mesure où les services s'engageaient à respecter un certain nombre de règles, la licence était comme attribuée automatiquement.

6974   On pense qu'on peut... parce qu'on nous a dit beaucoup dans ce secteur-là que la rapidité d'exécution était importante, on s'est dit, bien, on va en tenir compte. Donc, ce processus d'attribution automatique, dans la mesure où on respecte certains critères nous semblait tout à fait adéquat.

6975   Et l'autre point important, je pense, qu'il faut bien voir de notre présentation, c'est que seuls les services qui atteignent un certain niveau de revenus ou un certain niveau d'achalandage seraient visés, parce qu'on se dit, c'est sûr qu'il y a des services.

6976   Moi, je peux me faire une web radio, moi, Solange Drouin, une radio probablement inintéressante pour l'ensemble du public et je ne sollicite pas de revenus publicitaires, je ne sollicite pas... je ne ferai pas d'achalandage.

6977   Alors, on se dit, bien, là, écoutez, cette créativité-là, on peut la laisser aller puis ça peut être une programmation musicale, non interactive au même titre que quelqu'un d'autre.

6978   Alors, on se dit, si... il faudrait quand même qu'on atteigne un certain niveau soit d'achalandage ou de revenu pour que, là, le CRTC se sente légitimé de réglementer en terme de contenu et en terme de contribution, mais, ça, c'est à définir avec vous.

6979   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Oui, tout à fait.

6980   Mme DROUIN: C'est ça.

6981   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Ce qui a fait mal à votre industrie, bien sûr, c'est le piratage et, maintenant, bon, on est en train de... je pense, d'éduquer les auditeurs de plus en plus. Il y a du téléchargement légal qui se fait, mais il n'y en a pas encore assez.

6982   Mme DROUIN: Non.

6983   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Seulement sept pour cent, je pense, que vous dites dans votre rapport aujourd'hui?

6984   Mme DROUIN: Oui.

6985   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Est-ce que votre modèle économique repose sur le fait que vous voulez en arriver à ce que tout le téléchargement soit légal, qu'il n'y ait plus de piraterie?

6986   Mme DROUIN: Bien, écoutez, il faut être réaliste. Pour contrer le téléchargement, c'est la conjugaison de plusieurs actions. C'est la conjugaison, évidemment, selon nous, évidemment en terme de droit d'auteur, là. On parle, évidemment, d'atteinte au droit d'auteur. C'est plutôt... c'est de ça dont on parle.

6987   Donc, ça fait longtemps qu'on discute avec le gouvernement fédéral pour que la Loi sur le droit d'auteur soit modifiée de façon à nous donner des droits supplémentaires pour vraiment essayer de régler ce problème-là. Il y a des... évidemment, comme vous le dites aussi, nous, en tant qu'industrie, on a fait des campagnes de sensibilisation, on les fait encore ces campagnes de sensibilisation.

6988   Évidemment, il y a de développer l'offre légale parce que je pense qu'une des questions pourquoi le niveau de consommation de ventes numériques au Québec est plus bas qu'ailleurs dans le monde, c'est peut-être justement dû au fait que l'offre légale est moins développée qu'ailleurs.

6989   En France, vous avez vu dans notre mémoire, on vous a présenté toute l'offre légale qui est vraiment foisonnante, là, notamment en France et en Europe. Ici, bon, c'est assez limité, mais on se dit donc, ça, c'est un autre ingrédient du succès et on pense c'est... comme encore aujourd'hui, malgré le Code criminel et autre, il se vole encore des jeans dans des magasins, le problème... je ne pense pas qu'on va être capable un jour d'éradiquer complètement le piratage. Ce qu'on veut, c'est le marginaliser le plus possible.

6990   Et, ça, c'est une conjugaison de facteurs qui va faire en sorte que... Et le CRTC fait partie d'un de ces éléments-là qui, selon nous, favoriserait la mise en place d'une offre légale et une place importante à notre contenu, donc aider le contenu à avoir accès à son public et à donner le coût à son public d'acquérir de la musique légale, c'est-à-dire de façon légale sur le... en numérique.

6991   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Oui. Ça m'amène à une autre question qui est peut-être un peu plus délicate, mais sur laquelle j'aimerais avoir votre point de vue.

6992   Mme DROUIN: Oui.

6993   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Est-ce que le modèle économique de revenus pour les fournisseurs de services internet est aussi basé sur du téléchargement qui se fait de façon illégale?

6994   Mme DROUIN: Non. Écoutez, là-dessus, c'est sûr que, nous, ce qu'on vous propose, c'est de discuter avec les services, c'est-à-dire les entreprises qui offrent ce genre de service-là à l'heure actuelle.

6995   Donc, je ne voudrais pas négocier devant... si vous nous permettiez... si vous encadrez cette négociation-là, évidemment, je ne la ferai pas avant de m'asseoir avec eux, ça va me faire plaisir de le faire, mais il est très clair pour nous que nous arriverions à cette... à ces discussions-là avec des demandes en terme de contribution au développement des contenus canadiens. Ça, c'est sûr. Et, ça, ce n'est pas pour compenser l'offre illégale.

6996   L'offre illégale ou... pas l'offre illégale, mais c'est-à-dire le caractère illégal pour ça, on veut des outils de... on veut des outils que la Loi sur le droit d'auteur nous donnerai pour nous permettre de contrôler finalement l'offre illégale, justement, sur les réseaux.

6997   Et ce n'est pas parce que leurs réseaux permettent qu'il y ait beaucoup d'illégalité en tout cas de nos produits qui se transigent, que c'est pour ça qu'on demande une contribution.

6998   On pense que ces entreprises-là qui, selon nous, sont des entreprises de radiodiffusion, devraient, comme toutes les autres, contribuer au développement des contenus canadiens, comme tous les autres éléments du système l'ont fait jusqu'à maintenant. Pour nous, je pense que ça devient... nous, ces gens-là n'existaient pas dans notre paysage business avant.

6999   Là, c'est des nouveaux joueurs, on les connaît peu, on les connaît peut-être mal, mais c'est des nouveaux joueurs et maintenant on se dit, bon, bien, maintenant que vous êtes des joueurs avec nous dans ce monde de la musique, bien, vous devriez y contribuer au même titre que les radios y ont contribué, les télés, les distributeurs en distribuant à MusicPlus et en ayant des contributions.

7000   Pour nous, vous faites partie de cette joute-là maintenant, de transmettre du contenu culturel, mais vous devez y contribuer. C'est plutôt sur cette base-là que pour régler un problème illégal et de dire, on va vous punir parce que vous... on veut vous faire payer parce que vous permettez... voyons, les transactions illégales de musique.

7001   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: C'est ça. Il y a plusieurs groupes qui sont venus nous voir.

7002   Mme DROUIN: Oui.

7003   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Entre autres, hier, je questionnais le Digital Media Association qui nous disait que c'est en ayant l'ordre d'exemption, tel qu'on l'a fait en 1999, qu'on a évité ou réduit la prolifération de piratage.

7004   Mme DROUIN: Ils vont l'expliquer comment?

7005   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Bien, il aurait fallu les écouter hier. Je ne veux pas résumer leur position.

7006   Mme DROUIN: Ah! O.k., pardon. Oui, d'accord.

7007   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Mais est-ce que... Donc, pour vous c'est l'inverse?

7008   Mme DROUIN: Bien, écoutez, le piratage de musique, c'est des chiffres astronomiques, là. L'an passé, au Canada, c'était 1.7 milliard de fichiers illégaux qui ont été échangés. Alors, je vois mal comment on dit...

7009   Tant mieux, ça aurait été pire peut-être, là, on peut peut-être dire que ça aurait été pire. Ça aurait été trois milliards de fichiers, je ne sais pas, personne ne peut le dire, mais je pense que le phénomène en soi est déjà très grave. Aurait-il été moindre? Moi, j'en doute beaucoup, là. Écoutez, c'est... c'est grave.

7010   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Donc, vous voulez qu'on lève l'ordre d'exemption?

7011   Mme DROUIN: Bien, nous, on veut... on souhaiterait puis on pense qu'il est judicieux de le faire de façon graduelle et, malheureusement, c'est ça, on dit: ce monde-là, le jeu de beaucoup de groupes, c'est de créer cette confusion-là en disant: mon Dieu, c'est tellement compliqué puis il se passe tellement d'affaires puis il y a tellement de services différents puis... tu sais, créer cette confusion-là, bien, là, tu ne fais rien dans ce temps-là et je comprends très bien.

7012   Nous, on se dit, écoutez, si on commence à caractériser un peu les services, sur certains on pense qu'il est possible de faire quelque chose ici, maintenant.

7013   Le deuxième pas, on vous dit, il ne faut pas qu'ils attendent dix ans. Le deuxième pas, on dit la discussion sur... un deuxième pas à faire dans ce monde-là, bien, on le fera ensemble avec votre concours parce que vous aurez mis en place tout un système de vigi, vous aurez amélioré, comme vous le faites à chaque année, votre rapport de surveillance et on dira le deuxième pas, ça sera peut-être dans deux ans, dans trois ans, mais il y en a un à poser ici, aujourd'hui; le deuxième, on le posera ensemble.

7014   On ne veut pas écrire l'histoire d'avance, mais c'est très clair que même si vous n'avez pas toutes les réponses, il y a un pas à poser maintenant.

7015   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Parfait. Je pense qu'on des objectifs du CRTC, c'est aussi d'identifier des moyens de mesures, des outils.

7016   Mme DROUIN: Oui.

7017   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: J'aimerais donc que vous preniez le temps de nous expliquer ceux que vous préconisez dans votre Annexe 4 que vous nous avez remis.

7018   Mme DROUIN: Oui

7019   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Et qu'on n'a pas eu le temps de regarder ensemble.

7020   Mme DROUIN: D'accord. Ça va me faire plaisir. Écoutez, nous, c'est clair que vous avez déjà, comme je le disais tout à l'heure, là, dans le rapport de surveillance, déjà bien des données, mais on croit que les éléments suivants pourraient nous dire... pourraient nous aider à voir la place du contenu canadien dans tout ça.

7021   Premièrement, il faudrait essayer de faire un inventaire, même s'il est évolutif, c'est clair que dès qu'on fait le portrait de quelque chose, c'est déjà dépassé le lendemain, là, souvent, mais il va falloir prendre un snap-shot à un moment donné.

7022   Mais si on essayait d'abord de voir comment on peut établir une offre de nouvelle plate-forme de radiodiffusion accessible au Canada et là-dedans, la part des services, évidemment, canadiens dans cette offre, quelle est l'utilisation de ces services, parce que depuis... j'entends et on l'a vu beaucoup dans les documents du CRTC, vous êtes préoccupés par le fait que le contenu canadien se retrouve-t-il, oui ou non, sur internet?

7023   Oui, il se retrouve sur internet, mais pour moi, personnellement, et pour l'ADISQ et pour Annie, ce n'est pas la seule question qu'il faut se poser.

7024   Il faut se poser la question: y a-t-il une place de choix, comme on a donné une place de choix à notre contenu musical dans les radios en disant, il y aura un espace de 65 pour cent de musique vocale de langue française sur les radios traditionnelles. Pour moi c'est comme... ce n'est pas... il ne suffit pas d'être là pour exister sur internet.

7025   Je vous donne quelque chiffres qu'on a relevés dans le Digital Report de l'IFPI, qui est l'International Federation of Photographic Industry, où on apprend qu'il y a 2.5 millions de groupes HipHop sur internet, là... sur Myspace, pardon; 2.4 millions de Rap sur seulement Myspace; 1.8 millions de groupes rock sur Myspace et on continue, là.

7026   Et c'est sûr là-dedans, j'espère qu'il y en a quelques-uns canadiens, mais il ne suffit pas d'être là pour que l'on considère que c'est suffisant, qu'on a donné les outils suffisants à notre culture d'avoir accès à son public.

7027   C'est pour ça que, nous, on dit, l'utilisation de ces services en terme de contenus canadiens, c'est vraiment un aspect important.

7028   Ensuite, l'autre point qui est l'ampleur et le positionnement du contenu canadien francophone là-dessus. Et, ensuite, l'organisation économique de ce secteur, dans toutes ses composantes, parce que c'est un nouveau secteur, comme je vous dis. En tout cas, pour nous c'est nouveau.

7029   Bien, c'est de moins en moins nouveau, mais vraiment l'ensemble des jours, comment... quels sont les flux monétaires de tout ça et, finalement, les effets des nouvelles plate-formes sur les milieux, sur les milieux où elles se déploient, notamment musique, cinéma, télé.

7030   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Puisque vous avez beaucoup réfléchi sur la question puis vous m'ouvrez la porte à la promotion, là, du contenu ou à la visibilité du contenu canadien, qu'est-ce que vous suggérez qu'on puisse faire pour faire en sorte qu'il soit plus facilement vu, accessible et promu par les nouveaux médias?

7031   Mme DROUIN: Hum-hum! C'est une grande, grande, grande question.

7032   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Je m'en doute.

7033   Mme DROUIN: Et, selon moi, ça participe aussi du fait de notre discussion avec les fournisseurs d'accès.

7034   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: O.k.

7035   Mme DROUIN: Parce que, pour nous, ce qui est clair, les fournisseurs d'accès, et j'espère que vous en êtes convaincus, tout est possible, en terme de filtrage, en terme de contrôle.

7036   Tout ce qui se passe dans leurs tuyaux, vous en avez des exemples souvent, toutes les formes de filtrage sont possibles. Tout le monde est très très très volontaire à filtrer le contenu pornographique ou pédo pornographique et tout le monde dit qu'ils vont faire tout ce qu'ils peuvent pour filtre ces contenus.

7037   Mais quand on dit : est-ce que c'est possible d'avoir une priorité de... avoir une façon de gérer le contenu canadien de façon différente à... je ne sais pas, moi, à ce que ça soit plus... que ça soit plus rapide ou que ça soit au premier plan, à chaque fois qu'il y a une transmission de... une transmission d'information et autres, là, tout à coup, tout devient impossible.

7038   Moi, là-dessus, je pense que c'est très clair que... il est possible de réfléchir avec les fournisseurs d'accès internet sur comment on peut s'assurer que de donner priorité ou une part Bell au contenu canadien ou aux services canadiens, sans être... sans dire que ce sera la seule offre, au même titre qu'en radio à l'heure actuelle, on a 35 pour cent de contenus autres, là. On ne dit pas, non, on ne veut rien savoir des autres.

7039   Écoutez, moi, je suis co-présidente de la Coalition pour la diversité culturelle qui est quelque chose de très cher pour le Gouvernement canadien, on se bat pour la diversité, mais pour participer au grand... à la grande messe de la diversité, il faut exister d'abord.

7040   Alors, on se dit, écoutez, c'est beau, on veut... on veut, nous, avoir accès à notre public peut-être plus facilement, mais on ne veut pas fermer les autres. Mais il y a des façons de le faire et tout ce qui est... tout ce qui se dessine à travers le monde, notamment en France, en Australie, il y a plein de discussions sur les formes de filtrage possible. On dit, ça, ça peut être applicable avec peut-être le consentement justement des groupes qui ont le... qui ont le commutateur, finalement, de ces services-là.

7041   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Je vais vous poser ma dernière question.

7042   Mme DROUIN: Oui.

7043   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: C'est encore un lien, comme le président l'a fait avec le Songwriters Association of Canada, qui, eux, comme vous aussi, préconisent une approche pro-active "if we can't beat them, join them".

7044   Mme DROUIN: Join them.

7045   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Et qui proposent aussi des moyens intéressants, entre autres, un forfait mensuel qui pourrait être payé aux fournisseurs de service internet, qui serait redonné aux créateurs et à l'industrie pour faire en sorte qu'il y ait, pour le consommateur, un accès à du téléchargement illimité, d'une certaine façon.

7046   Mme DROUIN: Hum-hum!

7047   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Qu'est-ce que vous en pensez et qu'est-ce que vous souhaitez, de votre côté, qu'on demande aux fournisseurs de service internet, si c'est eux que vous visez, pour la collecte d'un fonds?

7048   Mme DROUIN: Écoutez, encore une fois, pour moi, ça, c'est une question de droit d'auteur. C'est une question de droit d'auteur et la licence globale qui pourrait permettre ensuite de dire aux gens, vous pouvez télécharger tout ce que vous voulez et les droits d'auteurs... vous n'avez plus à vous préoccuper des droits d'auteur.

7049   Moi, ça, c'est une chose et je vous dis en tant qu'ADISQ, même si ce n'est pas le lieu pour en discuter, ce n'est vraiment pas notre solution. Ce n'est vraiment pas la piste que, nous, on préconise.

7050   Ceci étant dit, ça ne veut pas dire qu'en terme de contribution aux contenus canadiens, on est probablement, on va sûrement proposer aux fournisseurs d'accès, si on s'assoit avec eux, une contribution, ça, c'est clair, au développement des contenus canadiens, qui n'autorisera pas plus ou... et ne «clairera» pas les droits comme on le dit mal, les droits d'auteur.

7051   Ça, c'est une autre bataille et c'est des modifications à la Loi et c'est autre chose qu'il faut régler pour ça. Mais pour ce qui est des contributions qui découlent de l'application de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, ça, il est très clair que oui.

7052   Et moi, quand j'entends -- et je l'ai entendu ce matin -- dire que s'il y a une contribution de X ou de X dollars, c'est directement les pauvres consommateurs qui vont payer, je trouve ça un peu indécent, dans le sens que -- et je m'explique -- je suis allée à des colloques de l'Industrie des télécommunications. Ce sont des entreprises qui vont bien. Tant mieux, hein! Je veux dire, moi... nous, on représente des gens d'affaires et on n'est pas en train de dire que le profit ce n'est pas quelque chose qui... c'est quelque chose de mal, là, au contraire.

7053   Mais dans ce colloque où je suis allée, un colloque canadien et où on apprend que la marge bénéficiaire des entreprises de télécommunications, la marge moyenne c'est 39 pour cent puis il y a des entreprises où ça va jusqu'à 72 pour cent de marge bénéficiaire, et on dit que si je suis obligé de payer en contribution de talents canadiens X cents ou X dollars, je vais nécessairement le charger aux consommateurs, que je ne l'assumerai pas et que ma marge... auquel cas je veux garder ma marge bénéficiaire absolument à 39 pour cent et je ne veux pas assumer aucune autre dépense dans mon cost of doing business, je trouve ça un peu indécent de dire, c'est sûr que c'est le consommateur qui va payer.

7054   Je pense que, vous, si vous dites au CRTC, si vous dites à ces entreprises-là, vous devriez payer quelque chose, peut-être qu'ils peuvent l'assumer et que ça soit considéré comme un cost of doing business et que ça ne soit pas nécessairement refilé aux consommateurs.

7055   CONSEILLÈRE POIRIER: Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président.

7056   LE PRÉSIDENT: Michel?

7057   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Merci, monsieur le président. Bonjour mesdames.

7058   Mme DROUIN: Bonjour, oui.

7059   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Je reviens sur la question... une des dernières questions de madame Poirier qui était le mémoire de Songwriters Association of Canada parce que c'est vrai que la licence globale, c'est une question de droit d'auteur, mais vous auriez intérêt à relire leur comparution et nous fournir vos observations.

7060   Mme DROUIN: D'accord.

7061   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Parce qu'ils ont aussi dit que c'est une question de droit d'auteur et ce serait à la Commission de fixer le tarif. Mais l'encadrement juridique pourrait éventuellement arriver à être capable de présenter une demande à la Commission du droit d'auteur relevait des pouvoirs du CRTC.

7062   Alors, je vais vous demander de regarder leur présentation.

7063   Mme DROUIN: Tout à fait.

7064   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Pour... et nous fournir vos observations, s'il y a lieu.

7065   Ma première question a trait à votre présentation orale où vous dites que, effectivement, deux des membres de votre conseil d'administration, et vous prenez la peine de spécifier qu'ils sont des représentants de Québécor qui se sont dissociés de votre position.

7066   Dissociés de l'ensemble et de quel... compte tenu que vous avez... que la position qui est dans votre mémoire et celle de votre présentation ce matin n'est pas nécessairement la même à tous égards, est-ce qu'ils se sont dissociés de l'ensemble de la décision du conseil de l'ADISQ de déposer une intervention ou sur seulement certains volets et si c'est sur certains volets, sur lesquels?

7067   Mme DROUIN: O.k. Pour ce qui est du mémoire, il n'y a pas de... sur le mémoire qu'on vous a déposé, vous avez sûrement remarqué, puis on ne prenait pas position, qu'on se contentait de faire... que c'était très factuel. C'était le mandat que nous avions et c'est le mandat que nous avons rempli en tant que personnel de l'ADISQ et le conseil... et donc, les deux personnes membres du conseil étaient d'accord avec le dépôt du mémoire, tel qu'il a été déposé.

7068   Mais, maintenant, ça c'était... c'était un état de situation. Maintenant, sur la position, maintenant une fois qu'on a dit ça et qu'on est d'accord sur un portrait, quelles sont les mesures à prendre, là, à ce moment-là, ces deux personnes se sont dissociées des mesures que nous proposions, sur les recommandations....

7069   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Les trois... les trois mesures?

7070   Mme DROUIN: Oui, à l'exception peut-être et là-dessus c'est clair que pour eux, le dialogue est hautement souhaitable et que le dialogue est possible et hautement souhaitable sur le fait... pas nécessairement que ça soit le CRTC qui l'encadre, là, pas du tout, mais sur le fait qu'un dialogue est nécessaire entre les entreprises qui offrent des services d'accès internet et les producteurs culturels, ça, il est souhaitable, mais dans le sens que, nous, on le présente comme un cadre formel du CRTC.

7071   CONSEILLER ARPIN: D'accord. Parfait. Bon, bien, ça m'amène directement à mon autre chaîne de questions et qui retourne à votre tableau 2 et qui est, effectivement, qui sont des plate-formes à utilisation non interactive.

7072   Mme DROUIN: Oui.

7073   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Or, je remarque que dans les exemples que vous donnez, dans ces exemples-là, il y a des services qui sont uniquement de la diffusion en continu.

7074   Vous souhaiteriez quand même qu'on émette des licences pour la diffusion en continu, même si c'est exactement la même programmation que l'on retrouve en ondes?

7075   Mme DROUIN: Le simul casting là...

7076   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Parce que je vois CKOI, RYTHME et Rock Détente?

7077   Mme DROUIN: Oui, tout à fait, oui, dans la mesure... dans la mesure où c'est du simul casting, là, dans le sens que c'est la même même... c'est CKOI qu'on écoute on-air.

7078   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Bien, il y a trois...

7079   Mme DROUIN: Oui, tout à fait.

7080   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Trois des quatre?

7081   Mme DROUIN: Oui, oui, oui.

7082   CONSEILLER ARPIN: C'est ça.

7083   Mme DROUIN: Oui, mais c'est que, malheureusement, dans le... vous le savez comme moi, monsieur Arpin, mieux que moi, que les contributions... tous les revenus aux fins du calcul du développement du contenu canadien, évidemment les revenus qui entrent dans ce calcul-là, les revenus tirés de l'internet ne sont pas compris dans ces revenus-là.

7084   Alors, nous, on se dit que ça permettrait justement que les revenus tirés de l'exploitation... l'exploitation de ces bannières-là, finalement sur internet, pourrait, elle, maintenant être incluse dans la piscine des revenus et, donc, le calcul du développement de contenu canadien, lui, serait d'autant... il serait plus important, parce que les revenus de cette activité-là tomberaient, évidemment, dans le calcul du développement des contenus canadiens.

7085   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Maintenant, vous avez entendu Radio-Canada ce matin, vous étiez dans la salle au moment où ils ont comparu et il y a plusieurs témoignages qu'on a eus jusqu'à ce jour nous disant que ces revenus-là étaient essentiellement des revenus marginaux.

7086   Mme DROUIN: Oui.

7087   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Quelqu'un a dit dans le cadre des audiences que 82 pour cent des revenus allaient à des engins de recherche, principalement à celui de Google.

7088   Mme DROUIN: Oui.

7089   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Donc, on parle de quoi ici?

7090   Mme DROUIN: Bien, écoutez, c'est évident qu'on soit, et j'imagine qu'ils vous l'ont dit, ce n'est pas nécessairement ces marginaux maintenant, mais on discute de ça pour les prochaines années et on se dit, de toute façon, c'est un pourcentage. Alors, s'il n'y a rien, il n'y a rien, un pourcentage de zéro c'est zéro. Si ça n'ajoute rien, ça n'ajoute rien.

7091   Si ça ajoute quelque chose, ça ajoutera quelque chose et on pense qu'avec la progression des revenus de publicité sur internet qui sont comme ça, qui sont importants, on se dit à un moment donné, il y aura des revenus et les outils seront déjà en place pour qu'il y ait un retour dans un développement de contenu canadien et on pourra agir à ce moment-là. Mais si c'est rien, c'est encore plus facile de leur imposer cette obligation-là.

7092   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Mais si on... je vais faire une hypothèse, si on incluait ces revenus-là, il n'est pas impossible que les entreprises de radiodiffusion nous demandent de réduire les contributions de leurs antennes principales?

7093   Mme DROUIN: Pourquoi? Pourquoi? Je ne vois pas. C'est des revenus supplémentaires eux aussi.

7094   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Oui, mais..

7095   Mme DROUIN: Et, donc, c'est un bénéfice supplémentaire.

7096   CONSEILLER ARPIN: On voit actuellement dans le secteur de la télévision, on nous demande de revoir à peu près toutes nos règles à cause du climat économique, ce n'est pas important. Est-ce que ça ne se pourrait pas que... une suggestion analogue arrive à la radio... à la radio également?

7097   Mme DROUIN: Écoutez, ce que les radiodiffuseurs peuvent demander au Conseil, ça leur appartient. Vous leur avez dit non quelques fois, encore récemment avec la politique des nouveaux médias, c'est-à-dire des grands succès. D'ailleurs, on la souligne très positivement, on vous en remercie en tout cas, pour le milieu québécois.

7098   Écoutez, qu'ils le demandent, peut-être, mais, moi, je ne vois pas en quoi... eux, leurs bénéfices augmentent et c'est basé sur des pourcentages, pourquoi il faudrait que l'assiette diminue, l'assiette des recettes publicitaires dans le monde traditionnel, je vais dire, diminue parce qu'il y a un pourcentage de leurs revenus supplémentaires qu'ils font sur l'internet, on les ajoute.

7099   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Et si ces entreprises... et si ces entreprises déplacent leur site internet à l'étranger, on les réglemente comment?

7100   Mme DROUIN: Bien, écoutez, le service lui-même, nous ce qu'on... ce qu'on... Premièrement, ces stations-là qui détiennent déjà, qui sont détenues par une entreprise canadienne, en tout cas si on parle de ceux-là, ça me surprendrait qu'ils s'en aillent à l'étranger, il y a sûrement des bénéfices à être ici au Canada et ils y restent, mais ces entreprises-là, écoutez, vous parlez du serveur qui serait de l'extérieur ou de la...

7101   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Oui.

7102   Mme DROUIN: Mais le serveur, qui a le contrôle de cette programmation-là. Si la compagnie est ici, c'est un service canadien et, donc, c'est cette entreprise-là qui va puis qui doit payer, peu importe que son serveur soit au Zimbabwe, là.

7103   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Elle n'a rien qu'à se créer une filiale puis créer un voile corporatif.

7104   Mme DROUIN: Bien, là, ne leur donnez pas tous les trucs, là.

--- Laughter

7105   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Non, non, mais...

7106   Mme DROUIN: C'est comme...

7107   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Maintenant, vous...

7108   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Surtout qu'ils les connaissent, mais s'ils ne les ont pas faits à venir jusqu'à maintenant...

7109   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Vous, tout comme l'APFTQ, tout comme le Ministère du Québec, de la Culture et de la communication du Québec, et d'autres intervenants d'ailleurs qu'on a entendus hier, les gens de médias interactifs nous parlent d'une vie ou d'un observatoire.

7110   Mme DROUIN: Oui.

7111   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Et que le CRTC devrait créer ce dit observatoire.

7112   Mme DROUIN: Hum-hum!

7113   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Ça implique des coûts. Les coûts, on les prend où? Dans les contributions des radiodiffuseurs, au développement du talent canadien?

7114   Mme DROUIN: Non. Écoutez, je ne sais pas, là, c'est une boutade, mais, écoutez, pour moi, je pense que si on veut agir de façon efficace dans ce secteur-là, vous le savez, le rapport... votre rapport de surveillance est hautement utile, je pense que c'est ce qui vous permet de bien faire votre travail puis aussi, des données objectives.

7115   Vous ne sentez pas justement qu'elles sont soit présentées de telle façon pour tel groupe ou un autre, moi, je pense que ça fait partie des outils que vous devriez avoir et si vous voulez qu'on aille faire du lobby pour ça, pour que vous ayez plus d'argent, ça va nous faire plaisir de le faire. Ça va être notre contribution.

7116   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Vous allez faire votre lobby auprès des radiodiffuseurs parce qu'on vit des droits de licence.

7117   Mme DROUIN: Oui, mais peut-être que vous devriez avoir accès à d'autres formes d'aide. Tous les organismes qui ont une mission comme ça, aussi importante que la vôtre, je pense que vous devriez avoir un budget de fonctionnement conséquent pour vous permettre votre rôle.

7118   CONSEILLER ARPIN: Je suis sûr que notre secrétaire général va se faire un plaisir de prendre votre recette et de... Or, c'était ma dernière question, monsieur le président.

7119   LE PRÉSIDENT: Merci. Michel Morin, dernières questions?

7120   CONSEILLER MORIN: Oui. Bonjour.

7121   Mme DROUIN: Bonjour.

7122   CONSEILLER MORIN: Je voudrais vous parler du peel to peel ou paire à paire ou poste à poste, c'est votre bête, ça, c'est votre bête noire?

7123   Mme DROUIN: C'est une bête noire, oui.

7124   CONSEILLER MORIN: Est-ce que vous avez des chiffres plus récents, parce que je regarde les prévisions de CISCO, ils n'arrêtent pas de prévoir que ça augmente puis maintenant, ce qui se passe dans l'internet, dans nos tuyaux, c'est beaucoup un peu de ça?

7125   Mme DROUIN: Oui.

7126   CONSEILLER MORIN: Est-ce que vous avez un chiffre récent?

7127   Mme DROUIN: Un chiffre de?

7128   CONSEILLER MORIN: De l'utilisation de l'internet qui est dans le transfert des dossiers?

7129   Mme DROUIN: On a un chiffre là-dessus, non? Au Canada? Bien, il y a un point de milliards de fichiers qui ont été sauvés.

7130   CONSEILLER MORIN: Oui, mais le pourcentage d'utilisation.

7131   Mme DROUIN: Mais le pourcentage du tuyau... du tuyau en peel to peel, je sais qu'il y a un chiffre qui existe.

7132   CONSEILLER MORIN: Moi, j'en ai un chiffre, mais... je vais vous le dire, mais, moi, le chiffre que j'ai...

7133   Mme DROUIN: Je sais qu'il y en a. Je sais qu'il y en a, oui.

7134   CONSEILLER MORIN: ... je pense et je le donne sous toute réserve, c'est 60 pour cent.

7135   Mme DROUIN: Ça se peut.

7136   CONSEILLER MORIN: Soixante pour cent de ce qui se passe dans les tuyaux, c'est des gens qui transfèrent des dossiers, qui n'ont pas acheté des chansons et, donc, qui vous attaquent directement.

7137   Mme DROUIN: Oui. Mais, écoutez, on va... pour moi c'est dans ces eaux-là et on le précisera ou s'ils n'ont pas d'autres sources et d'autres chiffres dans notre mémoire en réplique.

7138   CONSEILLER MORIN: Il y a une technique et c'est un petit peu des commentaires que j'ai demandés à plusieurs avant vous, qui s'appelle «L'ordonnance par paquet».

7139   Mme DROUIN: Hum-hum!

7140   CONSEILLER MORIN: Et ce document-là a été déposé, mais la personne n'est pas comparaissante dans le cadre de cette audience, mais le document est sur le site internet du CRTC, la dernière version, parce que la version qui était jusqu'à hier n'est pas la bonne version et ça s'appelle -- c'est un gars de Toronto, monsieur Robert Ester qui a écrit "New Media Deep Packet Inspection and Canadian Content".

7141   Mme DROUIN: Hum-hum!

7142   CONSEILLER MORIN: Est-ce que vous avez lu ce...

7143   Mme DROUIN: Non.

7144   CONSEILLER MORIN: Ce document-là nous incite, nous, le CRTC, à utiliser cette technique parce que les réseaux, qu'on le veuille ou pas, vont être congestionnés à un horizon, comme je vous le dis, c'est difficile d'évaluer.

7145   Et, donc, les fournisseurs de service internet qui sont au Canada dominés par les cinq grands dans le fond et qui ont toute la technologie possible, peuvent identifier les contenus qu'ils transitent et peuvent donner, suivant que c'est du contenu canadien ou pas du contenu canadien, des priorités.

7146   Et l'effet, en ce qui concerne les transferts de dossier to peel to peel, bien ce serait de reléguer au deuxième, au troisième rang ce genre de contenu, donc, ce contenu pas payant où les gens s'échangent gratuitement des chansons, des sons, et caetera qui vous échappent, vous, les artistes.

7147   Mme DROUIN: Hum-hum!

7148   CONSEILLER MORIN: Et j'aimerais que ce document-là, que cette technologie-là qui n'est pas nouvelle, qui a été inventée par CISCO, mais qui pourrait être drôlement utile pour faire prévaloir le contenu canadien pour «prioriser» toute espèce de contenu canadien par rapport à ce qui se passe actuellement où c'est la liberté entière, mais éventuellement ils le font déjà.

7149   Il y a eu une décision du CRTC qui a reconnu ça récemment et qui a accrédité la décision de Bell qui a commencé à faire ça.

7150   Alors, donc, j'aimerais avoir spécifiquement vos commentaires sur ce document-là et, plus généralement, parce qu'il y a plein de documentation là-dessus, sur cette technique-là, en ce qui concerne le contenu canadien et en ce qui concerne, évidemment en ce qui vous concerne, le transfert des dossiers musicaux.

7151   Mme DROUIN: Tout à fait. Ça va nous faire plaisir puis ça va du tout... ce que vous dites abonde, en tout cas, dans le sens de nos réflexions. On se dit, bien sûr, quand on parle de réglementation d'un flux... d'un flux d'information, c'est comme un peu une entreprise de distribution, mais on ne peut pas calquer la réglementation des entreprises de distribution où il y a des ordres de priorité et tout ça.

7152   Ce n'est pas nécessairement un calque... un calque parfait de cette réglementation-là, mais c'est peut-être justement... On n'a jamais voulu, je pense, en tant que Canadiens, forcer notre contenu dans la gorge de nos amis, des citoyens. On veut juste qu'il leur soit accessible et s'ils le veulent, qu'ils le choisissent. Alors, c'est une façon de le mettre de l'avant, sans pour autant reléguer, que le contenu étranger n'apparaisse pas du tout.

7153   Alors, c'est ça que je pense est tout à fait, c'est...

7154   CONSEILLER MORIN: Et si vous permettez, parce que lui n'aborde pas cette question-là, j'aimerais aussi avoir vos commentaires sur la limite d'usage.

7155   On sait que, actuellement, Videotron, Rogers, Telus, ont tous des limites d'usage, des BID CAP qui sont différents et j'aimerais plus spécifiquement vous entendre éventuellement : est-ce qu'on devrait réserver, compte tenu de l'utilisation de plus en plus grande de l'internet, du streaming, et tout ça, est-ce qu'on devrait avoir un BID CAP, une limite d'usage qui soit plus importante?

7156   Par exemple, Videotron c'est 20 mega octets; Rogers c'est 60 mega octets. Est-ce qu'il devrait y avoir une partie qui soit spécifiquement... parce qu'au-delà de ces limites d'usage, on paie plus cher. Est-ce qu'il devrait y avoir une partie de ces limites d'usage qui soit consacrée aux contenus canadiens et qu'est-ce que vous pensez, vous qui connaissez très bien le CRTC, les règlements?

7157   Est-ce qu'un régulateur peut intervenir à ce niveau-là?

7158   Mme DROUIN: Parfait.

7159   CONSEILLER MORIN: Merci.

7160   Mme DROUIN: Nous le ferons.

7161   LE PRÉSIDENT: O.k. Merci. Ce sont toutes nos questions à vous. Merci. Madame la secrétaire, je crois qu'on a de l'espace pour d'autres intervenants avant le lunch.

7162   THE SECRETARY: I would now invite the Shaw Rocket Fund to come ahead to the presentation table.

7163   Appearing for Shaw Rocket Fund is Annabel Slaight.

7164   Please introduce your colleague and proceed with your 15-minute presentation.

PRESENTATION

7165   MS SLAIGHT: Thank you very much.

7166   Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Panel, Commission Staff, ladies and gentlemen.

7167   My name is Annabel Slaight, I'm the Chair of the Shaw Rocket Fund and with me is Agnes Augustin, President of the Shaw Rocket Fund.

7168   We wish to thank the Commission for giving the Shaw Rocket Fund the opportunity to speak at this hearing.

7169   As a dedicated investor in children's programming, we I understand are the only private fund presenting so we have, I would hope, a unique overview.

7170   We are here for three reasons. As a voice for children under 18 who are almost one quarter of the Canadian population and who do not otherwise have much representation here.

7171   We are here to provide you with information about kids and media that we think can help inform all of your thinking about Canadian broadcasting. The reason that information about what these early adopters are doing is valuable in that it is what adults will be doing five years or so in the future.

7172   We also come as champions of children's programming to challenge you and to also become champions by being vigilant about the programming that helps shape the minds of Canada's youngest citizens.

7173   Making the right decisions about kids' programming today helps our entire country as this programming helps shape the values of those who will grow up to be in charge of the value system of this country.

7174   So, who are these kids we are looking out for? On the surface their media lives sound pretty cool. Canadian children exist in a multi-platform, on-demand world and have access to world-wide content. They expect to choose how they watch their entertainment and they want a variety of choices and viewing experiences that involve interactivity and innovation.

7175   New media is not new for kids, it just is. A Youthography study, you have a copy there, completed with us in January, 2009 identified that Canadian youth age 9-18 have the following technology: 89 percent have high-speed Internet in their home: 58 percent have laptops, 91 percent have iPods or MP3 players and 72 percent have mobile phones.

7176   Grades 4 and 5 students on the jury of our Shaw Rocket Prize say this about the Internet:

"The Internet is cool because u can watch videos, u can chat and u can check stuff on it..."

7177   MS. SLAIGHT: And,

"I really like the Internet because it's just like a mini tool."

7178   MS SLAIGHT: Canadian children can access world-wide media and if they do not have access to Canadian content, foreign content is readily available to them.

7179   Youthography also reports that young Canadians want to define themselves as different from Americans and are starting to move towards a self-defined identity of being Canadian.

7180   Just 10 years ago you thought everything Canadian made was inferior, primarily television. So, this is a most interesting mind set shift.

7181   So, sounds pretty good. So, why are we worried?

7182   Agnes will talk about that.

7183   MS AUGUSTIN: The research that Annabel was talking about tells us that if we don't make the right decisions now about children and media we are putting the kids who are the future of Canada at risk, thus, Canada's sense of itself is at risk and here are the danger signs.

7184   Programming for Canadian children and youth highly thought of at home and abroad hit a record low of $250-million in production dollars in '07-'08 from the '99 high of $388-million. This is a 35 percent decline.

7185   Over-the-air broadcasters have simply left kids out of their audience and this is leaving about 10 percent of youth, primarily those in low-income families who do not have access to specialty channels, with little access to programming made for them in Canada.

7186   Our national public broadcaster is letting young people down tragically. The CBC spent only 9.8 percent of their $90-million CTF envelope on children and youth programming in '07-'08.

7187   And hear this, the CBC now focuses primarily on preschoolers. So, after kids turn six, their national broadcaster is not doing much for them at all.

7188   The responsibility of providing children's programming has been left primarily to specialty channels owned by two broadcast groups. Corus and Astral are now the custodians of our children. The problem is not that the programming they do is not good, in fact they have good programming and we invest in many of their shows, but this concentration may limit diversity.

7189   And now comes the issue of new platform rights. These rights are critical to the survival of the creators of children's programming as this world shifts and are being seized by broadcasters as part of their traditional licence fees, even if they don't have the will or the ability to use such rights.

7190   These five points comprise a serious risk to kids' programming. What do we do to ensure that kids don't get short changed any more in the TV environment and also coming up short in the new world of media?

7191   Surely it should be the responsibility of the Federal Government to ensure a strong future for Canada by ensuring that media helps Canadian kids grow up Canadian and feel good about our country.

7192   So, what can the CRTC do about this while it has a chance? Three things.

7193   One, implement regulatory measures that make Canadian children a priority in the broadcasting system.

7194   Two, allow the Rocket Fund, the only fund focusing on youth programming, to go with the times and financially support multi-platform content.

7195   And, three, make sure that Canadian children's content gets a fair share of resources.

7196   Now, we would like to answer the specific questions put forward by the Commission, but we only do so from the perspective of the Rocket Fund as an investor in Canadian children's programming.

7197   We will comment on the impact on the Canadian broadcasting system, the contribution and support of Canadian programming and the visibility and promotion of the content.

7198   On the impact of broadcasting in new media on the Canadian broadcasting system, kids don't really care who makes the content or who is distributing it or who is earning revenues of the content, they just want to see a variety of interactive and innovative stuff on whatever platform they visit.

7199   Kids have an expectation of multi-platform media experiences that cross between TV and digital content and if we don't offer them Canadian programs, they will look elsewhere with this experience -- or to get this experience.

7200   This idea of, if the program doesn't offer the total media experience it's inferior, seems to be understood by two main broadcast groups, Corus and Astral, who both just recently purchased online children's libraries from their U.S. partners.

7201   Corus purchased the entire Canadian online rights to the Nickelodeon library including "SpongeBob SquarePants" and "Dora the Explorer", and Astral purchased all the Disney online rights for Canada.

7202   It would be interesting to see how much they paid for these rights, perhaps it's a starting point when determining the value of the online rights in Canada.

7203   From a funder's point of view, our bias is towards independent producers because we invest in independent production. These independent producers are tremendously innovative in developing their programs and have built a strong reputation world wide for their dedication in meeting the needs of their audience.

7204   The financing and creation of Canadian independent children's production is a partnership between the producer, the broadcaster, the funders and government by way of regulated funding.

7205   These partnerships ensure that we get the best programs for kids and the benefits of the exploitation in all markets and media should be shared fairly among all the partners.

7206   Today broadcasters in many instances are demanding all Canadian digital content rights. We understand the rationale for wanting these rights, however, this seizing of rights does not take into account the partners that finance the program or those who own copyright, like the Rocket Fund, that should have the right to participate in the revenues from those digital rights.

7207   And then there's the question of whether or not the broadcasters are maximizing the rights for the benefit of their audience and the stakeholders.

7208   A non-exclusive approach with partners for the digital rights would allow for more points of entry for the already difficult to find content in Canada. By having a broadcaster hold the exclusive rights, the exposure of the program will be limited and, frankly, if the broadcaster's not exploiting all the rights, then it is not good for anyone, including the kids.

7209   On the contribution to creation of Canadian content in new media. This is an exciting new world that kids thrive for the energy that this digital world gives them. The Rocket Fund has great confidence that Canadians who make kids' programming have the ability to create and be entrepreneurial to meet the demands of their audience and stand on their own if we don't put any regulatory barriers in their way.

7210   In fact, expanding and making regulation more flexible would help promote more content online.

7211   The funds, such as the Rocket Fund, were developed for the multi-channel TV universe. With the migration online and the advent of individual TV, we believe that the funds available under current regulation need to adjust to the realities of where the audience is.

7212   Since the audience is shifting a portion of their viewing time online, isn't it logical then to shift a portion of the current contributions for Canadian television to related online content?

7213   This is most important for kids' programming, programming for those early adopters and, therefore, the Rocket Fund. And, frankly, doesn't such digital content already meet the directives of the Act without further regulation?

7214   We also believe that the existing elements of the broadcasting system should be more efficient if there was collaboration between all parties.

7215   For example, although terms of trade are being negotiated between producer and broadcaster, it would benefit all stakeholders if negotiations involved consultation with funds, private and public, to help determine how best to maximize those digital rights.

7216   Through better collaboration of all parties, including government, there's also potential to maximize the current funds available. One example of this is to review the effects of expensive interim financing. On average, four percent of a budget submitted to the Rocket Fund goes to banks. Using this estimate of four percent for total budgets of CTF-funded productions in '07-'08, it was $869-million per Nordicity in the profile. An estimated $35-million of total CTF budgets may be going towards interim financing.

7217   If this could be reduced to just under two percent, there could potentially be an additional $20-million available to finance online content within the current funding regime.

7218   Support of content. From the point of view of kids, they have adopted all types of media and they only care if it's good. If it's good and Canadian, then it's even better. And if the content can provide an all-viewing experience, then that is the best.

7219   From the point of view of an investor, content online that is relevant to the audience and enriches their lives should be supported.

7220   On the visibility and promotion in new media. There is a need for promotion of all content online. This is a global concern due to the massive and overwhelming amount of content online.

7221   Should the Rocket Fund be given more flexibility with its funding, we would support the promotion of kids' content online and help with the visibility of such programming.

7222   The Rocket Fund already does this with its television productions through its initiative, the Shaw Rocket Prize, and would expand such promotion online if it were able to.

7223   MS SLAIGHT: So, when it comes to kids' programming, we believe that the government needs to take a strong role, to be a champion and to ensure that ad revenue aside and broadcaster bottom line aside, that Canadian children will always have access to Canadian programming on all platforms.

7224   This is not just about conditions of licence, this is a responsibility of the Government of Canada to its children. Each element of the Broadcasting Act is to support the Act, and children form a very important part of the Act.

7225   Please don't close the door on our kids. They are 25 percent of Canada's population and they cannot speak for themselves in high places. The CRTC needs to be their champion.

7226   Thank you.

7227   THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, thank you for your presentation.

7228   On page 7 you make your three points. The second point where you want to be able to financially support multi-platform content. Have you ever asked us for that?

7229   MS AUGUSTIN: Yes, we have. We submitted that with the submission in July -- or actually it was in September with the private fund submission on new media. That's on hold at the moment I believe.

7230   THE CHAIRPERSON: I see. Okay.

7231   And the third point, make sure children's content gets its fair share of resources.

7232   Can you add a bit of particularity here? Which resources are you talking about and what's fair?

7233   MS AUGUSTIN: We're referring to current resources, looking at the existing funding system in Canada and looking at the allocation that children's programming gets.

7234   We're looking at any sources of subsidies that's provided to children's programming by way of government regulated or private funds, looking at ensuring that there's an amount that's relevant and that's a sufficient amount to support enough programming for kids online, and there's 25 percent of our population is kids, and the CTF at one point said, you know, we're just under 20 percent and that's where the population is. And right now kids are at 25 percent. We don't reach that across the board.

7235   THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So, what now are we to do? I mean, we don't set the terms of the CTF.

7236   MS AUGUSTIN: Pardon me?

7237   THE CHAIRPERSON: We don't set the terms of the CTF, we don't tell them how to distribute the funds.

7238   You are addressing yourself to the CRTC.

7239   MS AUGUSTIN: M'hmm.

7240   THE CHAIRPERSON: So, that is what I was trying to figure out, is what exactly you expected us to do here, be an advocate basically for children is what I gather is the main thrust.

7241   MS SLAIGHT; I think also in terms of -- when we say resources, we're using that word in a very large context, it's the amount of air time that kids are getting, the amount of attention that they're getting.

7242   So, don't forget them. And actually we're really asking the CRTC, along with us, to remember them and be a champion of kids at the same time, an advocate, as you said.

7243   THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

7244   Tim, you have some questions?

7245   COMMISSIONER DENTON: Yes, I do.

7246   Thank you.

7247   Good afternoon, ladies.

7248   I'm just going to talk to you a bit about some of the contentions in your written proposals and seek clarification of them.

7249   You've stated that there's a need for financial support, not only for content creation, but also for:

"...innovative means to promote Canadian programming online." (As read)

7250   COMMISSIONER DENTON: And you note that:

"The biggest challenge for new media content is creating awareness in a world that is user and search engine driven." (As read)

7251   COMMISSIONER DENTON: Do you have ideas or suggestions for us as to how these innovative means of promotion -- what these innovative means of promotion would be?

7252   MS SLAIGHT: The short answer is no, but if we were to put our mind to it, we would love to come up with some.

7253   MS AUGUSTIN: At the moment we have, on the television side, five years ago we recognized that there wasn't a lot of profile for Canadian children's programming within the country and it was our number one exporter, it's one of the best stories about television is children's.

7254   And we developed the Shaw Rocket Prize and after five years we've been able to effectively increase the profile of children's programming within the country and abroad and it's been very -- we believe it's been significant.

7255   So, looking at that model, perhaps something different. As Annabel said, we don't have an answer for that exactly online at this point, we're not dealing with the online at the moment, but we're looking at doing something similar in that manner where we could create some kind of profile for kids where they would be attracted to Canadian content online.

7256   COMMISSIONER DENTON: Fair enough.

7257   MS SLAIGHT: And one of the things that we always do when we're thinking about doing things that are to help out our young audiences is to ask them. We don't just make up things, we spend time talking with kids themselves.

7258   So, we would get ideas from them.

7259   COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank you.

7260   In paragraph 8 of our submission, you raise the question of whether the Commission could differentiate between a program that's created by an individual of high quality and the Commission's definition of professionally produced content.

7261   And my question for you is, do you believe this distinction is tenable between professionally produced and other?

7262   MS SLAIGHT: Two different things, two sides of one coin.

7263   One of the things that is very important in the world of children's media is that content that is professionally developed brings to it a lot more than what you see. Very often there's research into what it's going to do for kids, how it's going to help them in some way.

7264   This is really what Canadians in the world of television have excelled at, at making programs that are really fabulously entertaining but they usually have quite a lot to them in terms of values.

7265   And that's what the professionals can bring to the world of children's new media, but there's lots of room for kids themselves to be creating things too.

7266   COMMISSIONER DENTON: Okay. You recommend that only new media programs that receive funding from the CRTC regulated or publicly regulated fund should fall under the Commission's attention.

7267   Are there limitations in your mind as to what new media programs should be eligible to receive funding from these sources?

7268   MS AUGUSTIN: When it comes to kids' programming and the ancillary market I guess, or the new media market encompasses a lot of different types of programs or types of content.

7269   When kids go online they're expecting everything from games, to website interaction, to streaming part of the episode to portals to other things basically.

7270   So, what we're looking at is the content that's related to children's programming, all that that encompasses, the entire viewing experience, we would consider that to be -- fall under that regulated amount.

7271   COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank you.

7272   To the extent that broadcasters child-oriented new media properties feature advertising, should they be subject to the Broadcast Code for advertising to children?

7273   MS AUGUSTIN: The Rocket Fund is -- when it comes to advertising, as an investor in children's programming we would leave that to organizations like the Media Awareness Network, they're actually up next.

7274   MS SLAIGHT: I think after us.

7275   MS AUGUSTIN: And we would think that they would be more in a better position to answer that in respect to advertising for children.

7276   COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank you.

7277   These complete my questions, Mr. Chairman.

7278   THE CHAIRPERSON: Steve, as always, you are the last one between us and lunch.

7279   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

7280   With respect to your position at the bottom of page 13 regarding the fund being given more flexibility with its funding, mainly so that you can start participating in the promotion of kids' content.

7281   We have been hearing for the last week that in the new media space conventional programming doesn't necessarily apply any more, that the new media really is an extension of what we've been seeing in conventional broadcasting.

7282   So, I have two questions. Question No. 1 is: Does your fund participate in activities beyond the creation of conventional programming, value added new media bits, let's say, that surround the program itself? Does your fund allow that opportunity for producers?

7283   And, secondly, what ideas do you have with respect to how you would participate in promotion of content if the fund was given a little more flexibility?

7284   MS AUGUSTIN: The Shaw Rocket Fund is a private fund that's regulated by the CRTC and as it currently exists we are only able to finance productions that have a broadcast licence and that airs on television.

7285   So, when it comes to financing online content specifically, we are not able to do that and that's one of the requests that we have here today.

7286   In regards to ancillary products that are as a result of a refurbished I guess content that was made for television that ends up online, I guess by extension we are involved in that.

7287   So, if there is a webisode or a mobisode that's created with the content that we actually participated in, then we would be part of that, but as far as helping with the creation of that...

7288   We're asked regularly by our producers if we're able to fund any of the new media content and the ancillary content, and we're not in a position to do that right now. We would like to, but at the moment we're not. So, just by way of being part of the television program is our participation.

7289   In regards to the promotion as we just said, you know, one of the roles that the Rocket Fund has played in the last -- you know, specifically in the last five years is to be a champion of children's programming for television and it's something that we're always looking at ways to be innovative and doing what we can within our mandate.

7290   And, so, if we were able to finance productions online or kids' content online, we would try to find ways to promote that.

7291   And as Annabel said, we look at -- whenever we do these things, we look at -- with kids, we look at getting input from them on how best it would be to reach them and we would probably take some action and hopefully would be able to take some action by doing some research and finding out how best to do that.

7292   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Last question.

7293   With respect to terms of trade, the CFTPA, as we had asked CBC earlier today, have made a submission to us that as a way to break what seems to be a bit of an impasse right now on negotiation of rights, where broadcasters feel that they have to wrap their arms around every aspect of different types of platform to secure those rights and the content community feeling that the broadcasters are not levering or using those rights sufficiently, the CFTPA come forward with a proposal of a use it or lose it period where there was a window.

7294   Have you seen that and, if you have, what's your position on it?

7295   MS AUGUSTIN: Oh, we definitely have a position on this as a funder.

7296   One of the -- when it comes to terms of trade or negotiating the rights, one of the things that the Rocket Fund -- see, we deal with broadcasters across the country, so we deal with the public broadcasters, the private broadcasters, so any broadcasters that air children's programming.

7297   And there's been -- the last year in particular, probably year and a half, we see in many cases the seizing or this rights grab. We're also seeing the revenue share, but we're seeing a lot of different ways that producers and broadcasters are trying to participate in these rights.

7298   We understand that the broadcasters need some of those rights in order to maximize their exposure and to promote their programming on television and also to, you know, to basically support their business model as it exists. But one of the things that we're seeing is, is almost I guess fear in a way that, you know, these rights -- we don't know how to use them yet, but we should have them.

7299   And in kids, we're looking at six years and sometimes their co-terminus rights, so then these rights then that may be available for programming are sitting with a broadcaster and tied up for that long period of time.

7300   There's two issues around that. One is that kids are online expecting to see that content and if the broadcaster's not in a position to maximize all those rights, I mean, some of them they might do, but not all those rights, then the kids are missing out.

7301   And then from an investor's standpoint, we find that those are rights that we would normally participate in. That's revenue that goes back into the fund, that goes back into the industry.

7302   And, so, we are basically -- download-to-own is technically home video and if the broadcaster owns exclusive download-to-own, which means no one else can actually post that online and have kids download it, then that market share is sitting there with the broadcaster. And if there is no revenue share, the broadcaster keeps all the revenue and basically controls those rights.

7303   So, in regards to terms of trade, you know, we definitely feel that it's necessary to be able to come up with some kind of plan that makes sense for all parties involved.

7304   And, you know, some of the rights that the broadcasters are taking, they don't even have the ability to exploit, like mobile rights, or we've seen TVO take, you know, the mobile and VOD rights and they really don't have the ability, they think one day they will, but at the moment they don't.

7305   So, the use it or lose it clause is something of interest to us and something we have actually proposed to the broadcasters, that if they can't maximize those rights in a certain time frame, that it should go back to the producer to figure out how best to maximize the rights that are out there.

7306   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you.

7307   MS SLAIGHT: We actually used the word seize on purpose because, I mean, sometimes broadcasters are negotiating for world rights for new media and that definitely is something they probably can't use.

7308   So, there does need to be some serious conversation about that topic.

7309   And I think we've said that we, as investors in Canadian children's programming, would like to participate in those conversations.

7310   THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Well, thank you very much for your presentation.

7311   And thank you for reminding us that kids make up 25 percent of the population. When we talk here about producers and actors and so forth, we shouldn't forget about them.

7312   Thank you.

7313   We'll break for lunch now and we'll resume at 1:30.

--- Upon recessing at 1222

--- Upon resuming at 1341

7314   LE PRÉSIDENT : Madame la Secrétaire, commençons.

7315   LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci, Monsieur le Président.

7316   We will now proceed with item 33 on the agenda of the hearing, which is a presentation by l'Alliance pour l'enfant et la télévision, The Alliance for Children and Television.

7317   Mr. Pete Moss is appearing for the company and you can introduce your colleague and proceed with your presentation.

PRESENTATION

7318   MR. MOSS: Thank you.

7319   Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission and staff. My name is Peter Moss. I'm the Chair of the Board of the Alliance for Children and Television.

7320   Before we begin our presentation, I would like to introduce my colleague Caroline Fortier, the executive director of the Alliance.

7321   At the outset, we wish to thank the Commission for having invited us to take part in this most important public hearing, which should serve as the basis for establishing the framework for the future of our Canadian broadcasting system in relation to new media applications.

7322   To further assist the Commission in the present deliberation we will focus our comments today on two areas: (1) the need to continue having a strong regulatory structure for developing and distributing quality Canadian audiovisual programming, particularly for children, and (2) our response to some of the more specific issues raised by the Commission in relation to a number of assumptions it has put forward in preparation for this public hearing.

7323   As the Commission knows from past interventions, the members of the Alliance are firm believers in our national broadcasting system and its great potential to generate increased interest in Canadian programming among Canadian consumers. The Alliance, more specifically, takes as its primary focus the needs of a particularly important component of the television viewing public, which is Canada's children and youth.

7324   The Alliance represents a group of broadcasters, producers and individuals from across the country who are committed to the development of quality television programming that appeals to children and youth, as well as contributes to our cultural development as a country.

7325   We know that children and youth (2 to 17-year-olds) are spending on average 25 hours a week watching television -- the source is BBM Spring of '08 -- compared with 30 hours a week at school. Twelve to 17-year-olds spend 40 hours a week; that's 10 hours more than they spend in school. This same age group represents just under 18 percent of regular Internet viewers in Canada.

7326   We know that technology and information proliferation are changing not only the way people access the information and entertainment they are seeking but also the amount of audiovisual content available to them. In addition, numerous recent technological innovations allow for more mobility and individual choice.

7327   In view of this, the Alliance considers it crucial that the Commission examine the impact of new media and its effect on Canadian children and youth. In our view, it is becoming critical that concrete measures be put in place to ensure we continue to be able to provide our Canadian children and youth with our stories and our values in this new media environment, as we currently do on television.

7328   As the Commission mentioned in a previous Public Notice:

"Canada is a world leader in broadband connectivity."

7329   It is progressively more evident that new media is an important component in fulfilling the communication needs of consumers of all ages. Therefore, the Alliance believes the Commission should use this public hearing to challenge all participants to confirm their intention of maintaining Canada's capacity as an important content creator for Canadian consumers and, indeed, for all users of the worldwide web.

7330   MS FORTIER: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, if you will allow me, I will continue this presentation in French.

7331   En ce qui concerne les nombreuses questions soulevées par le CRTC, l'Alliance souhaite faire les commentaires suivants.

7332   En réponse à la question, « Faudrait-il instaurer des mesures incitatives ou réglementaires pour favoriser la création et la promotion d'un contenu canadien de radiodiffusion par les nouveaux médias? », l'AET considère qu'à cet égard, il est essentiel de trouver de nouveaux moyens de financer le contenu canadien afin de répondre à la demande de contenu croissante du nouvel univers médiatique, qui ne comprend pas seulement le Web mais aussi les applications mobiles.

7333   À notre connaissance, sans l'existence du Fonds de la radiodiffusion et des nouveaux médias de Bell, qui est une conséquence directe des politiques antérieures du CRTC, il n'y aurait que très peu de contenu néomédiatique destiné aux enfants et aux jeunes.

7334   L'Alliance invite le Conseil à pousser plus loin son examen de cette question pour favoriser une approche novatrice dans la recherche des moyens de financement, de sorte que les Canadiens puissent obtenir à l'écran les sujets qui les intéressent et partager leurs valeurs dans l'environnement des nouveaux médias.

7335   L'AET tient à reconnaître officiellement la valeur et le mérite du Fonds Bell, notamment en raison des efforts qui ont été déployés de ce côté, au cours des dernières années, pour présenter un point de vue canadien aux enfants et aux jeunes dans la programmation des nouveaux médias.

7336   Cependant, le Canada ne peut se tourner vers l'avenir et espérer pouvoir répondre aux besoins de tous les consommateurs canadiens avec les ressources limitées du Fonds Bell et des autres sources existantes, comme Téléfilm Canada et le Fonds Quebecor. Nous devons trouver des sources de financement supplémentaires si nous considérons qu'il est important de développer une programmation néomédiatique dans une proportion suffisante pour pouvoir offrir un point de vue canadien distinctif aux enfants et aux jeunes.

7337   L'Alliance pense qu'il est essentiel que le Conseil se serve de la présente instance pour envisager sérieusement d'imposer une contribution aux fournisseurs de services Internet, contribution qui servira à soutenir le développement de contenu canadien des nouveaux médias.

7338   De récentes études ont montré qu'environ 50 pour cent du contenu consommé dans Internet peut être considéré comme du contenu de radiodiffusion. On peut aussi considérer que lorsque les fournisseurs de services Internet distribuent un tel contenu de radiodiffusion, ils agissent, en fait, comme des entreprises de distribution de radiodiffusion.

7339   À cette fin, nous sommes convaincus que le Conseil devrait réexaminer sa décision de 1999 d'exempter Internet de toute réglementation, afin de reconnaître complètement le rôle de diffuseur que jouent les fournisseurs de services Internet et leurs responsabilités en ce qui a trait à la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.

7340   En outre, si nous croyons que les services de téléphonie mobile élargissent également leur distribution de contenu de radiodiffusion, il faut alors réexaminer également l'exemption dont ils bénéficient.

7341   L'Alliance demande aussi au Conseil de mettre en place de nouvelles règles pour reconnaître la participation financière des radiodiffuseurs canadiens dans le développement d'applications néomédiatiques. À l'heure actuelle, le Conseil ne reconnaît pas ces investissements, et il devient de plus en plus difficile pour le Fonds Bell d'impliquer les radiodiffuseurs dans un grand nombre de ses projets.

7342   Par ailleurs, l'Alliance recommande au Conseil d'être vigilant et de ne pas permettre aux radiodiffuseurs de se soustraire à leur obligation de développer une programmation canadienne dans le domaine de la télévision traditionnelle. En aucune manière, le financement des applications néomédiatiques ne doit se faire au détriment des conditions de licence concernant le contenu canadien en matière de radiodiffusion traditionnelle.

7343   L'AET croit que le choix du moment pour mettre en marche une révision des politiques du Conseil est déterminant pour la façon dont le système canadien de radiodiffusion pourra continuer à remplir son important rôle de service aux Canadiens.

7344   Le Conseil sait très bien, à la lumière des études qu'il a faites, que les consommateurs canadiens recherchent de plus en plus de nouvelles manières d'obtenir le contenu audiovisuel au moyen d'Internet et de la technologie mobile. Or, ce contenu audiovisuel provient de la programmation télévisuelle.

7345   Par conséquent, si le Conseil souhaite appuyer le contenu canadien dans les nouveaux médias, il doit s'assurer que le contenu canadien est développé au départ pour les médias traditionnels, car c'est principalement ce type de contenu que les utilisateurs d'Internet recherchent actuellement.

7346   MR. MOSS: The Alliance has thoroughly gone through the material submitted to the Commission for this hearing. We fully support the proposal of the Shaw Rocket Fund to increase its share of the Shaw funding formula split of the Shaw Rocket Fund versus the CTF from 0.6 percent to 1 percent of the total 5 percent regulated contributions to Canadian programming. The Shaw Rocket Fund has proven its commitment to the production of quality Canadian programming for our children and we believe they will continue to do this.

7347   We also agree with the Shaw Rocket Fund when it says its Fund must be able to extend its support to programming on various platforms to reach its main audience "however and whenever they are watching."

7348   While we can be thankful for the efforts we have just discussed on the part of the Bell Fund, Telefilm Canada and the Shaw Rocket Fund, they cannot do it alone. The question of funding quality Canadian content for our children has to be addressed.

7349   We have to find new ways of financing Canadian content programming for new media platforms if we expect to continue striving to achieve the objectives of the Broadcasting Act which clearly specifies, among other things, a commitment to children as a specific audience.

7350   Children's television is one of Canada's success stories, with Canadian producers and broadcasters drawing on an incredibly diverse cross-section of talented Canadian creators and artists to produce programming that is relevant to Canadian children who access it through both conventional and new media applications.

7351   The Alliance for Children and Television strongly supports a regulatory regime which places Canadian programming at the forefront of any policy considerations. We fully recognize that new media applications represent challenges for content distributors but in our view they also represent new opportunities and we should encourage broadcasters and producers to innovate and create freely.

7352   Our hope is that Canada's tradition of excellence in developing quality audiovisual content for children and youth will continue in the realm of new media as a result of the Commission's new regulations and guidelines that will result from this hearing. The Broadcasting Act clearly states that each element of the Canadian broadcasting system shall contribute in an appropriate manner to the creation and presentation of Canadian programming.

7353   To this end, the Commission has required the Broadcast Distribution Undertakings, cable and satellite, to contribute a percentage of their overall annual revenues to supporting the development of Canadian programming. We believe the same requirement should be applied to Internet service providers -- and perhaps mobile services -- to help develop and ensure a strong Canadian presence in their web offerings.

7354   It's important to recognize that none of these new media distribution entities would be able to develop into financially viable enterprises if they didn't have original content to offer subscribers. The key word to be considered in your deliberations is "content," and how much and through what means can we make available innovative Canadian content to Canadians? How can we ensure that Canadian children will be able to benefit from the best our Canadian creators and artists can offer on all media platforms?

7355   Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, we leave you with these closing words. Please ensure that you think of children and their particular needs in this new multimedia environment. They are avid consumers. Let's ensure that we provide them with Canadian content whenever they want to watch and whatever platform they want to watch it on. Thank you.

7356   This completes our oral presentation. We look forward to responding to any questions you may have. Thank you.

7357   THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your presentation.

7358   Madame Fortier, à la page 5, au premier paragraphe, vous dites:

« L'Alliance demande également au Conseil de mettre en place de nouvelles règles pour reconnaître la participation financière des radiodiffuseurs canadiens dans le développement d'applications néomédiatiques. À l'heure actuelle, le Conseil ne reconnaît pas ces investissements, et il devient de plus en plus difficile pour le Fonds de la radiodiffusion et des nouveaux médias Bell d'impliquer les radiodiffuseurs dans un grand nombre de ses projets. »

7359   Qu'est-ce que vous voulez dire, qu'on reconnaisse complètement les investissements dans des applications néomédiatiques ou il y a un mélange d'une production qui a une application néomédiatique et des radiodiffusions traditionnelles, qu'on reconnaisse toute leur contribution? Est-ce que vous pouvez particulariser exactement qu'est-ce que vous voulez?

7360   MME FORTIER : En fait, ce qu'on veut dire, c'est que les diffuseurs investiraient probablement beaucoup plus d'argent dans les applications ou dans le développement des nouveaux médias s'ils étaient en mesure de pouvoir faire en sorte que cet investissement-là soit reconnu en terme de contenu canadien.

7361   Ils sont freinés parce que ça ne l'est pas, et on ne sait pas jusqu'à quel niveau ils iraient, mais c'est clair que si on leur permettait de le faire, on pense qu'ils investiraient davantage, et bien sûr, ceci en tenant compte que ça ne se fasse pas au détriment de leurs obligations actuelles.

7362   LE PRÉSIDENT : Mais si on prend un radiodiffuseur actuel comme CTV, ils vont investir dans un projet qui est complètement néomédiatique...

7363   MME FORTIER : Oui.

7364   LE PRÉSIDENT : ...et, pour le moment, il n'y a pas d'applications traditionnelles, vous voulez que nous comptons ça comme un investissement dans la radiodiffusion pour eux?

7365   MR. MOSS: Can I answer that?

7366   THE CHAIRPERSON: Sure.

7367   MR. MOSS: We're not absolutely insisting or suggesting that the dollar value be counted that way because in some instances in conventional broadcasting it's not an issue of that. It may be a question of airtime that is traded in the way that air rights are traded in buildings so that somehow a Canadian new media platform counts as Canadian content on air even though it's not actually on air.

7368   That's one possibility that might be explored but we do think that there's some way -- there ought to be some way of encouraging broadcasters to participate in that investment.

7369   THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand. I just wanted to see how far you push your concept.

7370   So you're actually willing to push it quite far, not only in terms of dollar contribution but also in terms of priority programming, original content, et cetera?

7371   MR. MOSS: We're certainly willing to discuss that. We think that children represent such a high proportion of new media users that that clearly is an area that they want to find Canadian content and since that's where they want to find Canadian content, we should do as much as we can to make it available to them.

7372   THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you.

7373   Michel, je crois que tu as des questions?

7374   CONSEILLER MORIN : Oui. Bonjour.

7375   En page 7, vous dites que le Conseil a exigé des entreprises de distribution de radiodiffusion par câble et par satellite.

7376   En ce qui concerne les nouvelles contributions, est-ce que vous inclueriez également les satellites, en plus des entreprises de téléphonie, cellullaires, sans-fils, et des fournisseurs de services Internet? Parce qu'on sait que Telesat, par exemple, relaie des signaux sur terre, et eux ont parlé de la contribution qu'ils pourraient apporter.

7377   Est-ce que Telesat serait dans votre... quelqu'un qui pourrait fournir et contribuer à un nouveau fonds?

7378   MME FORTIER : Je vous avoue bien honnêtement que nous n'avons pas envisagé cette possibilité-là.

7379   Mais écoutez, puisque vous la soulevez, pourquoi pas? Toutes les contributions seront bienvenues en ce qui concerne les émissions jeunesses ou la programmation jeunesse ou les contenus jeunesse qui se retrouveront sur Internet.

7380   Nous sommes déjà sous-financés à toute sorte de niveaux. On l'a souligné ce matin. Le dernier rapport du CFTPA a montré une baisse dramatique de 34 pour cent du volume de production en jeunesse au Canada l'an dernier, et c'est une courbe descendante depuis plusieurs années. Donc, toute contribution supplémentaire sera bienvenue, c'est certain.

7381   CONSEILLER MORIN : Il y a quand même quatre fonds au niveau des nouveaux médias, des médias interactifs : le fonds expérimental du Fonds canadien; Téléfim, auquel vou savez fait référence; le Fonds de Quebecor; le Fonds de Bell.

7382   Comment on peut expliquer -- quand même, il y a déjà plus de $ 30 millions dans le système, si ce n'est pas davantage, peut-être $ 40 millions -- que le contenu des émissions pour enfants ne trouve pas grâce auprès de ceux qui, justement, ont cette offre-là au niveau des fonds? Comment vous expliquez que...

7383   MME FORTIER: En fait, je ne sais pas si je comprends bien votre question, mais si je peux répondre pour le Fonds Bell, 50 pour cent de ce qui est financé, comme vous le savez, qui est lié à des émissions de télévision, est lié à des émissions jeunesse. En fait, 50 pour cent des argents qui sont donnés par le Fonds Bell sont donnés à des projets de nouveaux médias reliés à des émissions jeunesse.

7384   Évidemment, au Fonds Shaw, c'est l'ensemble des argents en télévision qui sont donnés à des émissions jeunesse.

7385   Pour ce qui est de Téléfilm, si je ne me trompe pas, ça représente environ 25 pour cent du fonds des nouveaux médias.

7386   Donc, énormément de production néomédiatique qu'on retrouve actuellement est liée à des émissions jeunesse, mais visiblement... enfin, c'est...

7387   CONSEILLER MORIN : En final, le résultat n'est pas là? C'est ce que je comprends.

7388   MME FORTIER : Nous ne disons pas que le résultat n'est pas là. Il y a des produits jeunesse sur le Web. Ce que nous sommes en train de dire, c'est que la très grande majorité, sinon la totalité, de ce qui se retrouve sur le Web vient de la télévision, et si nous exsanguons la télévision pour l'envoyer dans le Web, on ne fournira pas là, c'est clair.

7389   Donc, il faut continuer à financer adéquatement la programmation télévisuelle qui va se retrouver, de toute façon, sur le Web, mais parallèlement, pour développer des nouveaux produits Web, notamment pour les enfants qui sont des consommateurs avides de toutes les formes de... sur toutes les plateformes, il faudrait constituer un fonds autonome ou, enfin, séparé qui permettrait de financer ces contenus-là.

7390   CONSEILLER MORIN : Parce que les enfants sont plus interactifs que nous?

7391   MME FORTIER : Ils sont beaucoup plus attirés vers le Web, c'est clair. En fait, on se rend compte qu'ils consomment plus de tout. Ils consomment autant de télévision qu'avant, mais maintenant, en plus, ils sont sur Internet extrêmement actifs dans les jeux, dans le chat, sur les téléphones cellulaires. Je ne vous apprends rien, toutes les études le disent.

7392   Donc, ce seront les adultes de demain qui ne perdront pas, fort probablement, ces habitudes de consommation là. Ils doivent retrouver à l'heure actuelle des contenus qui leur parlent, qui leur parlent de leurs valeurs, qui sont canadiens si on veut être capable de les retenir plus tard.

7393   On a prouvé au Québec hors de tout doute comment on est en mesure avec nos émissions québécoises de parler aux Québécois et de plaire à notre auditoire d'une façon extraordinaire. Les Canadiens le font aussi. Il faut continuer. Il faut persister dans ce sens-là.

7394   CONSEILLER MORIN : Dans un monde idéal, vous avez proposé des modifications au fonds de Shaw, le Rocket Fund.

7395   Quel serait le montant qu'on pourrait vraiment envisager qui pourrait vous satisfaire en ce qui concerne...

7396   MME FORTIER : Vous parlez du Fonds Shaw spécifiquement?

7397   CONSEILLER MORIN : Non, non, en général.

7398   MME FORTIER : En général. Bon...

7399   CONSEILLER MORIN : Est-ce qu'il y aurait une enveloppe...

7400   MME FORTIER : Écoutez, 50 pour cent des contenus qui se retrouvent sur le Web actuellement sont jeunesse. Alors, si la production, quelle qu'elle soit, sur l'Internet pouvait profiter de 50 pour cent des fonds, ce serait juste rendre justice à ceux qui les consomment à l'heure actuelle.

7401   CONSEILLER MORIN : Sans que vous ayez des chiffres précis à nous donner, est-ce que vous avez des expériences ailleurs dans le monde en ce qui concerne le financement des émissions pour enfants qui soient comparables ou supérieures à ce qui se fait ici?

7402   MME FORTIER : En termes de financement, je pense que le Canada est un pays assez particulier. Je ne crois pas, hein?

7403   MR. MOSS : I don't know. I don't know.

7404   CONSEILLER MORIN : Autrement dit, c'est parce que, quand je regarde l'ensemble du système canadien, on a, bien sûr, le diffuseur public, mais on a aussi des contributions que, d'année en année, le CRTC est allé chercher.

7405   Aujourd'hui, on parle d'environ... on a les chiffres de 2007, c'est autour de $ 300 millions, le fameux 5 pour cent qui va au Fonds canadien, à la télévision communautaire, et caetera.

7406   Et là, le CRTC, pour la première fois au monde, vient de créer un nouveau fonds pour la programmation locale, sans compter que même si on parle de l'Internet, les revenus des entreprises de distribution continuent d'augmenter, tant et si bien que l'an prochain, enfin, 2009, disons, c'est dans l'horizon de $ 400 millions.

7407   MME FORTIER : N'est-ce pas là le monde idéal dont vous parlez?

7408   CONSEILLER MORIN : Bien, justement. Et pourquoi créer un nouveau fonds? Parce que déjà, le fonds dont on parle ici, c'est quelque chose comme $ 1 par abonné par mois, un autre $ 100 millions qui s'ajouteraient aux $ 400 millions dont je viens de parler.

7409   Ma question est simple : Est-ce que vous connaissez un système à travers le monde qui met à contribution les entreprises privées en faveur de d'autres entreprises privées, comme le fait le CRTC depuis 40 ans? Est-ce qu'il y a des exemples plus importants?

7410   Je vous ai posé la question sur les enfants. Vous n'avez pas été en mesure de me donner des exemples de ce qu'on faisait ailleurs qui était bien supérieur. Le Canada semble un leader. Puis là, on revient, puis on dit, il en faut encore davantage. Oui, mais un moment donné, le consommateur... et c'est pour ça que je vous pose les questions.

7411   Est-ce que vous connaissez non seulement un autre système à travers le monde où on assiste à des transferts... parce que si ce 1 pour cent là était ajouté, il y a déjà 6 pour cent dans le système, ça ferait 7 pour cent, 7 pour cent des revenus des entreprises de distribution, qui sont aussi propriétaires des fournisseurs de services Internet, 80 pour cent des fournisseurs de services Internet. C'est TELUS, c'est Rogers, c'est Vidéotron.

7412   Alors là, on est rendu à 7 pour cent. Je me demande, est-ce qu'il y a... peut-être qu'on doit continuer d'être leader, mais au moins, j'aimerais savoir si on a des exemples semblables à travers le monde, à votre connaissance.

7413   MR. MOSS: We can certainly look and find and make that information available to the Commission as we find it.

7414   CONSEILLER MORIN : C'est tout. Merci.

7415   MME FORTIER : Merci.

7416   THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Michel.

7417   I guess those are our questions for you. We look forward to your written answers.

7418   Thank you.

7419   MR. MOSS: Thank you.

7420   LE PRÉSIDENT : Madame la Secrétaire, le prochain intervenant, s'il vous plaît.

7421   THE SECRETARY: I would now invite Corus Entertainment Inc. to come to the presentation table.

--- Pause

7422   THE CHAIRPERSON: O.K., Madame, nous sommes prêts.

7423   THE SECRETARY: Appearing for Corus Entertainment Inc. is Mr. John Cassaday.

7424   Please introduce your colleagues and then proceed with your presentation.

PRESENTATION

7425   MR. CASSADAY: Thank you, Sylvie.

7426   Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, my name is John Cassaday, I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Corus Entertainment.

7427   To begin I would like to introduce my colleagues who are with me today, Sylvie Courtemanche, Vice President Government Relations; Gary Maavara, our Vice President and General Counsel; and Scott Dyer who is our Chief Technology Officer.

7428   Mr. Chairman, Corus appreciates the opportunity to outline our perspective on digital interactive media markets in Canada and abroad.

7429   As you know, Corus is one of Canada's leading media and entertainment companies. Corus employs approximately 3000 people in Canada, the United States and Europe. We have extensive radio holdings, numerous specialty and pay services and three over-the-air television stations.

7430   We also own Nelvana, one of the world's premier producers of children's animation programming. The Nelvana program library currently comprises some 3300 half-hour episodes of Canadian produced and coproduced content.

7431   In addition, we own Kids CAN Press, Canada's largest publisher of children's books.

7432   Corus invests significant funds in Canadian drama through our movie services and specialty channels and we are proud of the success that we have had with independent producers and with our own productions in penetrating global markets.

7433   Since our inception we have committed ourselves to explore innovative ways to capitalize on the opportunities new technology affords us. Our approach has been to use a variety of digital platforms to deliver our content directly to viewers, not only in Canada but around the world.

7434   To accomplish this we acquired a studio. We invested in numerous new media ventures and continually upgraded our physical plants and the skill-sets of our employees so that we could be relevant to Canadian audiences.

7435   Recently we announced the consolidation of our headquarters in a new state-of-the-art facility on Toronto's Waterfront. This facility will be equipped with technology to allow us to compete in the digital realm.

7436   Our written submission describes some of the projects we are currently pursuing. We won't go through those again today, but the result of all of these activities is that today our productions are available in more than 160 countries and in more than 40 different languages.

7437   MR. DYER: New technologies provide us all with opportunities, but we must be strategic to succeed and global in our outlook and, as we have learned, realistic in terms of our expectations. The business model for new media is not yet clear. There are few viable businesses on a standalone basis even after years of experimentation.

7438   This high level of investment spent to date quickly dispels the notion that the internet is a market that has low barriers to entry. Indeed, it is easy and inexpensive to mount a website, but the internet is a very expensive method of delivering television content to large audiences. It is expensive to send it, it is expensive to attract people to your content and to offer sufficient value so that they return. It is also expensive to manage the rights that flow with these new platforms.

7439   This expense also needs to be assessed in the context of also protecting the content against unauthorized use or adaptation. In sum, the transaction costs on the internet require vast amounts of capital. For Canadians to succeed in new media we need to be experimenters, innovators and entrepreneurial in our approach.

7440   MS COURTEMANCHE: Our view is that the Commission's approach should be aiming to identify and remove existing policy and regulatory barriers that limit the ability of the existing broadcasting system to fully exploit digital interactive media markets.

7441   The key question we would pose is: How should the Commission ensure that the activities of traditional broadcasting Canadian media companies remain consistent with the objectives of the Broadcasting Act while, at the same time, providing these companies with the freedom and flexibility to stay relevant to Canadian viewers, subscribers and advertisers? This is no easy task.

7442   MR. CASSADAY: In our recent appearances before the Commission we have a prose an approach to policy and regulation based on what we call the Corus Big 6. We think these principles are particularly relevant to this proceeding.

7443   First, we recommend that we embrace the merits of fostering a Canadian-owned but globally competitive industry. It must be explicitly recognized that we compete in the world market. Of course this has always been the case in traditional broadcasting and our policies were built around the realities of our small market juxtaposed beside a huge market.

7444   Digital media simply makes the problem larger. The adjacent market is now the whole world.

7445   Government and regulatory policies must align their domestic policies and rules so that we can have a Canadian-owned system that is globally competitive. We can no longer shelter our domestic market. The barriers that we have built to protect Canadian media can become a confining trap if we are not mindful of the change. The obligations we have imposed must be evaluated in a broader competitive context.

7446   Second, we believe we should increase the probability of success of the Canadian media industry by encouraging the creation of larger Canadian media enterprises. Corus is a significant player in the Canadian market, but on a global scale we are very small.

7447   Google spent roughly U.S. $1.5 billion on research and development in 2007. This amount is greater than the revenue last year of the entire Canadian radio industry. So we must all recognize that the scale problem is worse in the digital realm than it was in traditional broadcasting. This makes it very challenging to participate in the new media world.

7448   To participate we must address the critical issue of the management of digital rights. We need to make a huge investment in technology to track and protect our rights and in training our employees to use it. To assist in this, we submit that our investment in digital rights management technologies should be eligible for traditional broadcast policy and tax credits. This will help, but they don't guarantee that we can raise the risk capital to be competitive.

7449   We believe that adopting policies that foster the development of large Canadian media companies is therefore in the public interest. An important first step would be to re-examine the Commission's diversity of ownership policy. Canadian players must be very well-funded, strategic in their product focus and recognize that even the strongest among us will be a small player on a global scale.

7450   MR. DYER: Third, develop an industrial strategy for Canadian production. As has been the case in other industries, we need to look at our business from a strategic perspective. Strategic thinking means making decisions about what the priorities are for the system.

7451   For example, we need to consider a policy priority that supports the creation of high-quality Canadian content from all Canadian producers, including producers that are affiliated to Canadian broadcasters. And we need to consider if it makes sense that many broadcasters be required to create the same genres of programming.

7452   Instead we need to consider what niches will capture the attention of our domestic customers and those abroad. We need to consider how the public and private elements of the system can work together to succeed.

7453   Similarly, broadcasters must be allowed to pursue the digital rights to content if they are expected to assume the risks and fully exploit new media opportunities. Too often we are seeing rights not effectively exploited, in part because the owner does not have the capital to mount a competitive strategy.

7454   At the very least, Canada's media companies should not face barriers to creating and distributed the high-quality Canadian content that is contemplated by the Broadcasting Act.

7455   Fourth, recognize that private media enterprise success is what will lead to a stronger cultural system, not the current system of progressive fees, conditions and tariffs.

7456   This principle is at the heart of our recommendations in this proceeding. Imposing a regulatory system of conditions, tariffs and quotas on new media participants will not promote a greater Canadian presence in new media. In fact, it is likely to have just the opposite effect.

7457   For this reason, Corus is of the view that the existing new media and mobile television exemption orders remain appropriate now and for the foreseeable future. There is no need for new measures or amendments to these exemption orders.

7458   Furthermore, the Commission should make no attempt to regulate the new media activities of Canadian broadcasters. As we have said, this would only inhibit, not enhance, our ability to prosper in the digital universe.

7459   MR. MAAVARA: Fifth, we must allow Canadians to experiment. Recognition of this principle is also key to new media. By their very nature new media initiatives are risky. Business plans are uncertain and ultimate success are very much a matter of trial and error.

7460   In that type of dynamic rapidly moving environment we must be able to experiment, to innovate and to try out new ideas. We must be nimble and able to react quickly to take advantage of new opportunities when they arise.

7461   Six, recognize that our small market requires that government continue its support of the research, development and implementation of intellectual property. There is a role for government to play with respect to direct funding and tax credits to support the creation of new media content.

7462   We recognize that these types of initiatives go beyond the purview of the Commission as they are matters of government policy. They are nevertheless crucial to the overall success of a national new media strategy.

7463   MR. CASSADAY: Mr. Chairman, that summarizes our response.

7464   We believe that adopting the policy framework that we have proposed, not only for the purpose of this new media proceeding but also to guide the Commission's approach to regulation of our traditional broadcasting activities, would go a long way towards the type of regulatory framework that we need in today's global communications environment.

7465   Finally, Mr. Chairman, Corus has reviewed the list of issues that the Commission developed to guide the discussion at this hearing. We have addressed many of these specific questions in our presentation today and we are of course prepared to respond to any other questions that the Commission may wish to raise in the questioning to follow.

7466   We did want to comment briefly, however, on one of the assumptions implicit in the Commission's approach to this proceeding and that assumption is that the Commission will be able to readily distinguish between user generated content and content produced for broadcast and thus could regulate these two types of content differently. Difficult to do.

7467   In no time at all the gap in production values, if it exists at all, will be bridged. Consumer grade, but nonetheless high quality HD cameras, are already readily available and the means to create and edit content is easily accessible at very affordable prices. In the future we believe that the distinctions proposed by the Commission between user generated and so-called professionally produced content will not be meaningful.

7468   From a policies' perspective this means that any plan to regulate these two types of content differently is based on an assumption that will not likely prevail.

7469   Mr. Chairman, that concludes our oral remarks.

7470   Thank you for your attention.

7471   We would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.

7472   THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your presentation.

7473   I must say I'm somewhat surprised. You know what the terms of reference are for this, this is new media, it is not a general review of the broadcasting system traditional and new media and the six points that you presented, as you yourself admit, you have done this before.

7474   What we are interested in are the terms as we specified for new media so our questions will be on that. I don't know why you reiterate the point that you already made in the BDU hearing, you know, that's not before us and that's what we do not want to address here.

7475   MR. CASSADAY: Well because, Mr. Chairman, we believe fundamentally that the policy framework is entirely appropriate for this hearing. We believe that if we are to be successful in new media as a country we need to have strong players and we believe that the broadcasting system is probably the greatest conduit we have to success in the new media environment.

7476   THE CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, I understand that. I'm not suggesting we don't, I just say this is not the time, in our view at least, to review the system.

7477   But let's deal with the issues. We put before you six questions and my colleague Mr. Simpson will take you through those in a moment, but let me just -- your final point -- and the first issue of our six questions has to do with measurement.

7478   Everybody says that we have to make sure that there is enough Canadian content on the new media primary signal so that -- but also probably as it expands on mobile platforms, but nobody really knows how much is there and how to measure it, et cetera.

7479   You have seen me the Peter Grant proposal, which is basically based on the assumption that 50 percent of what's on the web for instance is video. How he comes to 50 percent is not quite clear.

7480   We had before us the Canadian Television and Film Production Association who runs this ISAN in which I understand -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- it's basically like a digital watermark that gets put on there for the purpose of selecting royalties so that you can trace whether that video has been played somewhere and receive the same royalty.

7481   Now, all Canadian producers will use that presumably because they want royalties, I presume user generated people will not use it because that's an extra expense, why would you as the user use it, but even if you use it I have asked them to see whether it could make a distinction between sort of basically producing companies or not.

7482   Would that not be one way that one could at least utilize in order to see here -- take any one of the ISPs, let's take Rogers or TELUS, et cetera, here is your total traffic and "X" percentage of that traffic was ISAN and the ISAN tells us whether stuff was produced in Canada or not so we would at least get some handle on what kind of Canadian content there is on, in this case, the web.

7483   Does that make any sense or are we going down a dead end here?

7484   MR. CASSADAY: I'm sure my colleagues will have some comments. I guess the headline is we think you are going to dead end there.

--- Laughter

7485   MR. CASSADAY: In the system that we have in place it has worked so effectively because of two fundamental things. One, there was a limit to the amount of spectrum that was available, so the universe was definable and it was finite.

7486   Second, we could slant the system to our advantage and encourage the viewing and listening to Canadian produced content.

7487   In the world that we are moving into there is an infinite amount of choice and there is no slanting available. So the ultimate reality of this whole hearing is that we have to begin to think very seriously about the interests of consumers and what power do we have as a regulator or as content creators to influence them. The only power we have is our creativity and our ability to push eyeballs towards that content.

7488   So we think it is a noble objective, but not one that we should be pursuing.

7489   THE CHAIRPERSON: You are reading an objective into something that we haven't stated.

7490   We were very explicit that you go on the assumption it's unlimited space, exactly recognizing the reality of what we are talking about. It is an assumption and we accept that.

7491   There is an assertion, rightly or wrongly, that there is not enough Canadian content available right now. I don't even know whether that assumption is true or not, but in order to measure it would something along the ISAN give us some indication what is out there? That's as basic as my question is.

7492   MR. CASSADAY: Yes.

7493   THE CHAIRPERSON: Assuming we can, where does it take us, what can we do, et cetera? Those are the following steps.

7494   I'm just starting at the very beginning, I would like to understand whether the -- we have heard now for a week and a half that there is not enough Canadian content, whether that is actually true or not and how could one measure that.

7495   MR. CASSADAY: Okay. Understood.

7496   So I started from a macro. Perhaps we can talk about the effectiveness of some of the current measurement tools that are available and we can perhaps reach some conclusions about the utility.

7497   MR. MAAVARA: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad you asked about ISAN. I'm happy to say that Corus was one of the early funders and adopters in fact ISAN in Canada.

7498   I think Scott can speak to some of the technical issues, but first of all, ISAN is a bit of an illustration of the points that we made about scale in that I think our first contribution -- when Sandra MacDonald came to us we immediately said we are on board and I think our first contribution was something in the area of $10,000, and then we also started registering and using the numbering system for our programming.

7499   It has proven to be a very useful tool and it's probably going to become a broadly used tools and it's kind of the first step.

7500   The challenge of it, though, is that even once you have established this system of tagging the programming, you still have to do something with the data.

7501   Just to put it into a statistical context, if we take one program series -- I will use simple numbers, let's say it's 25 episodes and we have 40 languages of those episodes, so 25 episodes times 40 languages, and then we also start breaking up into territorial segments, you start to have an enormous amount of data that has to be managed.

7502   This is where it comes to our point about digital rights management. When we get the ISAN data coming out of wherever and whoever is measuring it, we then have to be able to sensibly make sense of it.

7503   And again, from a statistical standpoint, let's say we have 10 payees for a particular program, whether it's for music or script rights or whatever, you start to appreciate the massive amounts of data and management that you have to be able to deal with.

7504   So yes indeed ISAN is a terrific first step, but in a sense it's a fundamental step but we have a long way to go after that.

7505   Scott can talk a little bit about the technological aspect of it.

7506   MR. DYER: As Gary said, ISAN is an excellent first step, but it is only meaningful if it gains very wide acceptance and that all forms of content, in fact even international content, adopts the ISAN standard so that we can make accurate comparisons between the Canadian content which is streamed on the web and the non-Canadian content.

7507   We then run into problems --

7508   THE CHAIRPERSON: Can I stop you right there, just in general because -- surely an ISP can tell whether you are streaming or not streaming, so they could find of our traffic 80 percent are streaming or so, and couldn't they then, by virtue of the ISAN, identify of that streaming that X percent is Canadian?

7509   MR. DYER: As you indicate, they could look at the total identifiable streaming traffic, and look at the total amount that has an ISN tag that indicates Canadian, and make a judgment.

7510   THE CHAIRPERSON: Right.

7511   MR. DYER: What is wonderful about the web is that the ability to measure can be very precise. But, as Gary said, the amount of data is overwhelming, and as we look at multiple versions of shows, as we look at shows that may -- for example, Nelvana -- have been sold to other broadcasters around the world, and now appear on their websites in a streaming fashion, the difficulty is that the information we get back may not be as complete or as accurate as we would like it to be.

7512   Certainly it's notional. It certainly would give us some sense, but we could also find that information in other ways.

7513   For example, we could tell you on our websites how much of the content that we make available for streaming is Canadian or non-Canadian.

7514   We can look at content on commercially available sites, like iTunes and others, to see what is Canadian and non-Canadian, but it doesn't necessarily speak to consumer demand, and it doesn't necessarily tell us what consumers will adopt.

7515   And, remember, the internet, in particular, is very elastic and very flexible, so the ability for users to use other mechanisms to transfer video, whether it be encryption or other techniques, may stymie the efforts to measure.

7516   The goal of measurement is not a bad goal, it is more a matter of how accurate can it be.

7517   THE CHAIRPERSON: We are having a bit of a dialogue problem here, because you are always jumping to the next step. I am not there. I am not talking about consumer preference or anything like that, I was just trying to get a handle on the first thing, the internet traffic.

7518   To stay with that example, how much of that is --

7519   MR. MAAVARA: Oh, the volume.

7520   THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the volume.

7521   If I understand you, the data, whether it comes from your website or a foreign website, doesn't make a difference, as far as I am concerned. If it is a product that bears the ISN label, so to speak, the maple leaf, I would count it as Canadian. So I could say, of the whole traffic that goes there, X percent is Canadian.

7522   The only reason why you would do it -- it is not for policy, presumably, it is if you ever decided, down the road, as some people have suggested, to put a levy on ISPs.

7523   Because they are in the same boat as a BDU, you could only legitimately impose it to the extent that they distribute Canadian content, so that's why you need that measurement.

7524   MR. MAAVARA: We are not necessarily jumping to the next step, the concern that we have, in terms of understanding all of this -- let's take something like YouTube, for example. It is loading 10 hours a minute of video. Let's say that a proportion of that is Canadian, and it is marked with the ISN tagging. Then the question comes back --

7525   The ISP is measuring the uploads, and then it is measuring the consumption. In order to have a relatively accurate figure, statistically speaking, you have to be certain that, in fact, you have involved all of the ISP usage in Canada, and all of the video going back and forth in Canada inside a particular period. That is a huge amount of data.

7526   As I said, ISN gets you part of the way there, but it is not as simple as, for example, measuring ratings on linear television, which, as you know, is sort of a random effort in its own right, as well.

7527   I think we can take some comfort that probably that goal is achievable, but not in the short term, and not without an enormous investment.

7528   THE CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate that, and, as you say, you have to make sure -- how do you analyze the data. You can't just sort of accept it at face value, there has to be considerable analysis.

7529   Okay, Steve, I believe that you have a whole series of questions.

7530   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

7531   Mr. Cassaday, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for coming before us today, it is very much appreciated.

7532   Mr. Cassaday, I will direct my questions to you, and then let you determine who is best to handle the answer.

7533   Starting off at the wide end, I would like to set up a frame of reference for my understanding. What I seem to be hearing Corus saying -- and it may be one of the reasons why certain points of view you have are flying in the face of the narrower scope of this proceeding -- you are saying that, as a Canadian broadcasting company, you are prepared to take the world on; that, as a broadcaster, you want to be given the opportunity to be competitive at the world level; and that, if I am hearing you correctly, you are willing and able to bring forward Canadian content for world consumption; and because of those goals, domestic constraints may impede your ability to do that.

7534   Is that, in general terms, where you are coming from?

7535   MR. CASSADAY: Yes, Commissioner, that is. In effect, we have kind of borrowed Michael Porter's essential strategy on global competitiveness, which essentially can be summarized by saying that to compete effectively globally, you have to be able to compete effectively domestically.

7536   What we have done over the last 10 years is, we have done an amazingly good job in making web content available for children. We are doing it increasingly more effectively for women, and we plan to do a lot more in that area.

7537   Plus, we are making our content, Canadian produced, available around the world on Amazon Unbox, with BT Telecom. We were the first one to upload content with Comcast.

7538   We have demonstrated that there are effective Canadian players here. We have chosen a very niche-oriented position. We think that, even with the support that we enjoy in Canada, we have to pick our spots. We are not able to compete effectively against Fox and the other players, but in our own little corners that we choose to compete in, we do very well.

7539   Scott, maybe just a couple of other comments...

7540   MR. DYER: I would just make one comment. You mentioned our desire to take on the world. I think that one of the aspects that I am sure is clear to the Commission is that the growth of the web and the growth of the internet means that we are taking on the world, even if we kept our focus domestically. That is our significant challenge. Each day now, within internet space, we are not competing against Canadians, we are really competing against the world market.

7541   MR. MAAVARA: Commissioner, one of the things that we were quite excited about a few weeks ago was that we announced a deal with the iPhone. It's a new ap on the phone for our radio stations. Since then we have had 80,000 people sign up for the ap, and about 5 percent of those are offshore.

7542   So we have a terrific circumstance. We have a new platform, where people are listening to anything from CKNW in Vancouver to CKOI in Montreal on their phone, and a pretty good chunk of them are from outside Canada. We see that as an opportunity.

7543   Just as a kind of silly statistic, I personally have never had so much e-mail about an announcement we have made than that iPhone announcement. There have been dozens and dozens of e-mails from all over the place, people saying, "Wow, this is great."

7544   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Where I am going to go next with this is, now that we understand each other, half of what you want to do excites the heck out of me, and the other half gives me a lot of concern, because I am sitting on top of, as a Canadian, a personal desire to see our country known globally for the kind of talent we have, and the kind of innovation we have, which is all good. It is good for the balance sheet and it is good for, I suppose, our export economy.

7545   And, certainly, if the terms of trade are good, or constructed in such a way that Canadian talent is brought along for that ride, then it appears that it would be, indeed, all good, except that the ability of the internet to reach out to all of the eyeballs of the world, if it works to the extent that it ultimately perpetuates the demise, theoretically, and ultimately possible, of conventional broadcasting within our country, it leaves a huge vacuum behind.

7546   As we pursue the world market, what happens to our domestic market, and what happens to our domestic culture? What happens to our ability to communicate with each other?

7547   I was wondering if you want to take that at the broadest level, because I am going to drill down on that.

7548   Has that been part of your thoughts?

7549   MR. CASSADAY: First of all, when we come to a hearing, we never expect that everyone is going to agree with us.

7550   I think the tremendous thing about our broadcasting system, and this process, is that we have a chance to share ideas. We always try to do it in a constructive and non-confrontational way. We have an agenda, and there are many agendas.

7551   Our view has always been to just try to make sure that we contribute, in some way, to the dialogue, so I am not at all surprised that you don't agree with everything we said. Seldom is that the case.

7552   In terms of the broader question about how do we avoid hurting the Canadian broadcasting system by potentially ignoring the opportunity we have to regulate the industry, I think the first thing that we have to take into account or realize is that it is not just about the web. The bottom line is that we are in an industry where the single biggest issue is not the rise of the worldwide web, it's fragmentation.

7553   There are many, many, many choices fragmenting our audiences. It started off with some analog specialty channels, and then evolved into digital channels, and then it evolved into VOD and subscription video-on-demand on the web.

7554   Ultimately, the Canadian broadcasting system, in order to survive, will have to be flexible. It will have to be strategic and pick the places that it can compete.

7555   And we, as a system, the regulator and broadcasters, are going to have to adjust to tsunamis like the economic crisis we are dealing with now, and recognize that we have a set of rules that work pretty well under normal circumstances, but we have to be prepared to adjust quickly to take into account new factors, like we are dealing with today.

7556   I think that for you to put on your shoulders the pressure of saving the Canadian broadcasting system by regulating the internet and avoiding the demise of the current players is not a task that you should feel accountable for, it is only one element in a massive change that is happening.

7557   Again, going back to the consumer, who now has the expectation of unlimited choice, that is not going to be reversed by anything that any of us does or says.

7558   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Granted, but if the internet was the technological equivalent of globalization -- we are the Bank of Canada, not the World Bank, and we are worried about our currency. So I do take that on my shoulders, because that is our mandate -- part of it anyway.

7559   So that's where I am coming from, and it is not to be deliberately combative or oblique about it, it is just that that's part of the world that we live in, and we are trying to make things square. We are trying to see everybody get what they need out of this thing.

7560   The next question I have is, media properties being what they are, we have been living largely in a mass communication media environment, where the ability of broadcasting to talk to a lot of people at once has been its greatest strength, and sometimes its demise, because sometimes your greatest strength is your greatest weakness, and we have seen, or we may be seeing, not just as a result of the economy, but theoretically we are seeing large national media organizations start to collapse under their own weight, as they find themselves caught between not being able to go to the next level, to the world level, and they have lost contact with their roots.

7561   I am thinking of the networks, and I am thinking of some of the national, big daily newspapers; not criticizing the management, but just the nature of how they have grown.

7562   One of the things that I find intriguing about the internet is that it has the ability to talk to, literally, hundreds of millions of eyeballs, but those eyeballs can consume the internet selectively.

7563   I start dancing with the idea that, while it has great connectivity, it really is a new form of narrowcasting, and does it not possess the ability to reach globally, but also be the best tool we have ever seen to talk locally?

7564   Radio had an epiphany, I think, in the last while, where it came to realize that its strength was being local.

7565   I wonder, in your planning, if there is not -- and I am not trying to put a closed-ended question, because I would like to get the dialogue going -- if, in the course of looking beyond our borders, which is admirable, and I think that is very cool as a Canadian, we are not missing something by making sure that we have our other end covered.

7566   MR. CASSADAY: Our strategy is multi-faceted.

7567   First of all, as a corporation, we have coined our broadest strategic plan "Core and Explore", and the essence of that is that we believe that our core business is sustainable for some time into the future, but we need to explore other new platforms in order to ensure our survival.

7568   We do that selectively because, quite frankly, as much as we hear and read about new media, there are not many people, as Scott said in his remarks -- not many companies that are making money.

7569   So as it relates to the Corus strategy, our radio strategy is entirely local. Every one of our radio websites is designed to provide a listening opportunity for our P1s, our preferred listeners, who don't necessarily have access to a car radio, but would like to listen to it at work on the web.

7570   We have had huge success with that. We are, by far, the largest aggregator of content on our radio web properties across the country.

7571   We have no aspirations to be a global player, what we do have is the aspiration of super serving our customer in Canada.

7572   On the kids' side, our aspirations are broader, and that is because we are in the unique position of having access to content.

7573   We think that we are also in the unique position of being a strong player in the system to provide a leg up to all of the independent producer partners that we have, and provide them with access to our reach and our network. Some of them have taken advantage of that, and perhaps Scott could talk about that.

7574   As it relates to the women's businesses, right now all of our web presence is about supporting our broadcast networks. We have intentions of broadening that, but you will see, when we eventually do announce it, that it will be very specific. We are not going to try to compete against Oprah and Cosmo, but it will be a very selective approach, and, again, we think one that we can win.

7575   MR. DYER: I think that one of the aspects we would like to clarify, too, is that, as we talk about our global vision and our reach outside Canada, there are really two sides to that. There is the ownership of our content through our producing arm, which we do sell globally, but there is also the recognition that, as a Canadian broadcaster, and now as a Canadian new media player, our competition within Canada for attention is global.

7576   Much of what we mean when we talk about the need to have a global eye is to recognize that, today, Canadian viewers -- and in particular for us, kids -- are accosted by many, many kinds of media that do not originate in Canada.

7577   So as we look to compete and we look to gain strength, we have to have a global presence in order to have our content in Canada, and worldwide, stand up in what is essentially a global market today.

7578   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you.

7579   With respect to the independent producer that you mentioned a minute ago, Mr. Cassaday, you said in your written submission that you felt that one of the prime reasons why you felt it was imperative, at a corporate level, to really have control of content, from an ownership standpoint -- from a rights standpoint -- was that the independent producer, at the level you want to play at, doesn't have the ability to take the same kind of risks that you do, and if it is your stake in the game, then it should be your rights that you are playing with.

7580   I am wondering if you could tell me more about that.

7581   What do you have in mind for the content producers, so that they can share in that success, if they are putting all of their stock in your ability to sell their work?

7582   MR. CASSADAY: Scott, prior to assuming the role of Chief of Technology, actually ran our kids' business, so he can talk about some specific models.

7583   First of all, we have heard a lot about the long tail, which means, essentially, that instead of moving from reaching the millions that you talked about, down to reaching one, that is a huge opportunity for content providers, because they are going to sell one piece of content to an individual a million times, effectively having the same audience reach.

7584   The problem that most of us have right now is that it costs us about $5 to reach that one person, who pays us a dime.

7585   So the trade-off is incredibly unattractive from a financial point of view, which is why we have to make this massive investment in digital rights management, and Scott has set some goals for us as a company in that regard.

7586   Recognizing that, even for us, pretty much every time we get out there on that long tail we are losing money, what does that mean to a small independent producer? It usually means that that is not a place they want to go at all.

7587   So what we have been proposing, and we are finding great reception, is "Just tag along. Grab our bootstraps and come along with us." We can find models where we share the revenue based on the amount of attraction that their properties have within our offering.

7588   In fact, when we went on the Comcast VOD platform, we took our friends, and they had the opportunity to participate with us in that regard.

7589   MR. DYER: To build a bit on John's comment related to digital rights management, I like to look at it in four ways, as I look at our content. We consider the question of: Where is it? Can we find whatever piece of content is being requested?

7590   The question is: What format is it in? Some people might want it in a streaming format, others might want it in a quick-time format, or an MPEG format.

7591   Another question is: What rights do we have? If someone has requested to stream that content, to download, to own that content, to have that content on a rental basis, do we have that right?

7592   That question about rights relates not only to our relationship to the producer, but the producer's relationship to the rights holder who may have created the content.

7593   The last question is: If we do sell that content, who do we need to pay? We may need to pay a rights holder. We may need to pay a producer, because we have a revenue sharing deal.

7594   Being able to answer those questions effectively and quickly, and in the context of what might potentially be an online transaction, is an enormously complex and expensive business.

7595   As John said, it might cost us $5. I would perhaps disagree with him slightly and say that it might cost us $5,000 today to answer those questions.

7596   We are really counting on our scale and our ability to make the significant investments in digital rights management software and technology to be able to provide that, not only for our own content, but to bring along the content of other Canadian producers who have their productions on our broadcast channels.

7597   I think, in specific mention, we can look at our activities -- for example, our website for YTV, which streams, roughly, two million videos per month today. There are independent producers who are able to stream through that system.

7598   And the ability of our website to reach more than a million kids every month, again, an independent might not have the ability to mount a website and to pay the extreme cost of streaming all of that content. We are able to do it because of scale.

7599   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: On the subject of the technology side of things, we have heard from many of the submitters to this hearing that the Commission should be aware -- and I am thinking from two standpoints. I am thinking from a business model standpoint of content creation, and also from the funding aspect, any potential subsidy regimes that come out of this hearing that may contribute to the creation of more content for new media.

7600   We can't look singularly at the broadcast content model being just transferable to the internet, there are issues of re-purposing, there are issues of absolute new creation, and what seems to be everything in between.

7601   My question is more to the issue of building platforms. When you build a radio station or a television station, you get a licence, and then you get a capital cost requirement to get the bricks and mortar going. Once that capital cost is done, you are up and running, and then it becomes a question of feeding the beast, of getting your content going and creating revenue.

7602   In the new media world you have that same issue of the voracious appetite of the internet, but in terms of building the platforms -- you have talked about building an application for the iPhone, which I think is innovative, because it brings subscribers and those not necessarily who are your customers now -- it is bringing those from another interest group into your sphere.

7603   When it comes to building the platforms that you deploy all of this on, these are very rich, robust, new media platforms, and they cost money to build, but unlike bricks and mortar, do these things keep costing money to maintain?

7604   And, if they do, what is that doing to your balance sheet, when you are not getting the revenues in right now?

7605   Also, what kind of drain is it on your internal resources?

7606   MR. MAAVARA: I guess that one of the interesting things about the web and the various platforms is that it is kind of like the cappuccino machine in a lot of restaurants, it seems to be under repair a lot.

7607   There probably isn't a website in existence -- including, I will make the observation, the CRTC's website -- that doesn't require constant care and feeding to bring it to the next level or to the latest level. That is part of the huge cost of this.

7608   Where some of the business models are going, some of the very successful business models -- perhaps the only successful business models right now in the new platform realm are in what Lawrence Lessig calls the "hybrid economy", which is where, in fact, you get the users to build the platform. And the illustrations are numerous -- YouTube, Wikipedia, that sort of thing -- where, in fact, the value of the site is being built by the people who are using it.

7609   And the web is not just a place where you serve up content and deliver it. One of the things that broadcasters are trying to do is to learn how to live in that environment.

7610   For example, in Edmonton, we have used the strength of our local presence in news and associated that with our iNews 880 website, and one of the fundamental parts of that website is the community participation.

7611   That being said, you still have to form the foundation of that, or you don't really have a solid, credible news and information website. You still need to, in a sense, feed the beast, notwithstanding the fact that you are getting the outside world to feed it as well.

7612   There is no question -- and this goes back to our point about the need for capital. You have to constantly innovate in this area.

7613   And it is not only a technology issue, it's a content one as well.

7614   MR. DYER: I would mention that two of our three largest websites are currently being completely rebuilt from scratch, as an example.

7615   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: And probably again and again, from what I am hearing you say.

7616   You have to keep on freshening, it's part of your product. That platform is not just the deployment -- it's not the loading dock, it is part of the merchandising of the whole content stream.

7617   Is that not correct?

7618   MR. CASSADAY: It really is a consistent process. Unlike some activities, we have to keep the builders on staff, and we expect to rebuild websites on a yearly basis, as new technologies become available, as user expectations change, as the ability of the web to animate and bring interactive content changes.

7619   We are constantly needing to rebuild to remain relevant, again remembering that our competition is not simply in Canada, but it is really global.

7620   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Living the dual life right now of being a regular broadcaster and an internet broadcaster, are you finding --

7621   Explain to me a bit about how the interrelationship of those two worlds works. Is one helping the other? Is one starting to cannibalize the other? Or, will both continue to exist in the new world?

7622   MR. CASSADAY: We lead the dual life of being a publicly traded company and a company that wants to be here for the long term.

7623   For the Corus employees and the Corus directors who wonder what I do all day, it mostly is to say "No", because there is an insatiable appetite for additional people, additional technology, infrastructure.

7624   What we try to do -- and this gets back to that strategic plan premise, which is "Core and Explore" -- is manage the investments in new media in a way that allows us to keep going ahead, because those who have invested in our company expect continuous improvement. They are looking for quarterly growth, annual growth, and we can't say, "Listen, we are going to invest in the internet for the new four years. Be patient. Come back to us."

7625   What they do is, they say to me, "Why don't you give us a call in four years and we will have another look at you?"

7626   We have to manage these two worlds.

7627   In the meantime, what we do, because we can't do everything -- we are not Fox -- is that we say, "What are we going to focus on?"

7628   Our priority is to super serve kids. That is our primary focus at Corus. Secondarily, make sure that we meet the needs of our local radio audiences with robust sites.

7629   In some cases we enter into joint ventures. We licensed all of the Nickelodeon digital content for Canada, so that we could maintain our clear superiority in that realm.

7630   We licensed the software backbone system from EMIS for our radio activities, so that we can be best of class in that regard.

7631   Then, it is making sure in the other areas that they get addressed only after our two main priorities.

7632   So it's always a balancing act, recognizing that our primary focus right now is on serving our broadcast audiences, but recognizing that, longer term, we have to follow our consumers to new platforms.

7633   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: A housekeeping question here and then I think I'm done.

7634   You had suggested that investments in new media should be eligible for inclusion in your Canadian programming expenditure with the CPE.

7635   Do you feel that that has the potential of threatening the amount of content that would be available for conventional broadcasting at any point?

7636   MR. CASSADAY: Well, our specific recommendation was that we would be allowed to use the CPE expenditures to begin to measure. So, really we're proposing that we'd be allowed to invest in digital rights management.

7637   But, you know, ultimately 95 percent of our revenue comes from serving our audiences, the bulk of that comes from advertising and that's all ratings driven.

7638   So, again, the governor, if you will -- and this is an area where I think you asked the question, do we have to regulate. The answer is no, because what really drives broadcasters is getting ratings and ratings is through contributions to programming.

7639   Scott, I don't know if you want to add anything on...

7640   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Sorry, you just gave me an intro for one follow-up question.

7641   I had asked the question earlier of CBC that with respect to advertising we are seeing a slow trickle of migration of advertising dollars to new media, and I'm wondering if you have a comment with respect to the type of rating services that are available right now that provide measurable trusted results to the conventional advertising industry.

7642   They've been so relied upon, you know, the BBMs and the Nielsens of this world, that is a more effective rating system -- are you happy with what you have got now, or do you think that there is some room for improvement?

7643   MR. CASSADAY: Well, are you talking about on the new media side or just in the traditional?

7644   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: On the new media side in terms of being able to deliver trusted third party results in terms of audience delivery in new media?

7645   MR. CASSADAY: Scott's got a lot of expertise, but clearly on the new media side there's still a fair bit of ambiguity amongst the two major providers.

7646   MR. DYER: The accepted standard today is ComScore and Comscore is what we use with our advertising partners to demonstrate the reach and impact of our websites. But we would note that ComScore is currently under some amount of discussion as to the accuracy of their results.

7647   We also use a technology called HitBox internally and HitBox attempts to measure from our website the actual hits that are coming in and affecting our servers.

7648   And what's interesting about the two scores is that not only do they not match, they don't even correlate, and that indicates that our knowledge of what's actually happening on the web is perhaps nascent right now and our ability to correlate a web audience against a traditional broadcast audience is also in a very early stage. We can't create an equivalence and say this many viewers on a web stream is equal to this AMA on a broadcast stream.

7649   So, we're at very early days.

7650   This goes back to the point of measurement. In theory, the web should allow precise, accurate and absolute unassailable detail on who's doing what at what time, but this demonstrates that it's not always that easy and what we have today is really two watches and they don't show the same time.

7651   COMMISSIONER SIMPSON: Thank you very much. I'm finished.

7652   THE CHAIRPERSON: Michel?

7653   COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Thank you.

7654   Good afternoon, gentlemen.

7655   In your written submission you made it clear that you want to maintain the actual exemption and that the Commission shall stay out of new media as it has done since 1999.

7656   However, we have heard, and particularly from French Canada, and since you have operations in French Canada I am focusing my questions in that direction.

7657   All those who have appeared so far coming from French Canada have made a request for strong regulations regarding new media and quotas and licensing of new media, particularly those who are owned by existing licensees.

7658   They have also obviously all made a claim to the establishment of a subsidy regime coming from the ISPs and the wireless people, even one this morning made a request that we also have a levy on Internet revenues of those we will be licensing in order to sustain production of high quality media programming particularly by the independent producer.

7659   Well, I have to reply to these people. What are your comments and what is the view of specifically Corus and particularly in looking at it from the perspective of a smaller market than even the Canadian market, the French Canadian market?

7660   MR. CASSADAY: I think I'd simply say in fairness to our colleagues in Quebec who have much more significant pieces of their business there that we'd defer to you and them on that one.

7661   From our point of view, our particular position is no different in Quebec than it is for the balance of our business. So, I would not say that we would ask for anything different in the Province of Quebec than we've asked for in the balance of the country.

7662   But I do understand the particular language needs and the difficulty operating French language websites in North America presents from both an economic point of view and from the ability to aggregate audience.

7663   COMMISSIONER ARPIN: Thank you.

7664   MR. CASSADAY: Do you have any comment, Sylvie?

7665   MS COURTEMANCHE: Just to say that, you know, we understand where they're coming from because what you're saying is that the scale issue, if it's bad in English Canada, it's ten times worse in French Canada and that's the source of their concern.

7666   And if we're going to get lost, you know, in the web environment, they're going to be even more lost.

7667   And I would say at the end of the day that transposing the current system, you know, into the new media system I don't think is going to work, whether it's on the English side or the French side, because it won't guarantee at the end of the day that whoever that consumer is will go and get that content.

7668   And if there is a need to subsidize and support that content, then maybe there's a government action that needs to be done, and I mean government, Government of Canada.

7669   THE CHAIRPERSON: Tim?

7670   COMMISSIONER DENTON: Good afternoon.

7671   I'm going to come at it from roughly the same direction as Michel Arpin and just say that, okay, you're pretty brave. You've come before us and you're one of two groups I have heard tell us don't do anything, maintain the exemption orders.

7672   The second thing you have told us is you need to have an industrial strategy for Canadian production, but it doesn't necessarily involve regulatory intervention and if something is going to be done, it has to be done from -- put it this way, from the Federal Government not a regulatory agency.

7673   So, I'm going to try to ask the right question, and forgive me if it's not the right question, but what gives you the confidence of your views that this is what we need to do?

7674   MR. CASSADAY: Well, for many of us at the table, this is my 20th year in broadcasting and I know Gary's been involved in this business longer than I have.

7675   Scott is a creator of content, in fact Scott was the creator of Rollie Pollie Ollie and that's how he became associated with our company and is an expert in CGI and new media, which is why he's heading up the technology area of our company.

7676   And then, of course, Sylvie has a tremendous amount of expertise through her time with the CRTC.

7677   The bottom line is, we don't know if there are any right answers, we simply believe firmly that what we need to be looking at in times of tremendous change is a broad policy framework that we can operate under because I think that once we get down to the micro level we start dealing with all of the exceptions and the "yeah, but..."s and what we've tried to do is just say, perhaps we can add value to the process by just encouraging everyone to try to think in terms of broad principles instead of specific tactics that may or may not be useful and may or may not stand the test of time.

7678   COMMISSIONER DENTON: So, you are not asking for subsidy?

7679   MR. CASSADAY: No. What we're asking is that we be allowed to compete, that we encourage the creation of larger Canadian media companies who have the capital resources to compete broadly and can stand on their own two feet, and that you and others recognize that Canadian broadcasters, as well as independent producers, can make a meaningful contribution to the creation of Canadian content and that we can work together in harmony where it's in our mutual interests.

7680   So, that's the premise of our six guiding principles.

7681   COMMISSIONER DENTON: Thank you, gentlemen.

7682   Thank you.

7683   THE CHAIRPERSON: I have got to ask you this question because everybody before you now has been asking one way or another for some sort of subsidy to support Canadian content, basically saying because the market is so small and the costs are just as expensive as producing it for a large market, you won't have Canadian content unless you have some sort of subsidy.

7684   And if we did follow their advice and had some sort of a subsidy regime a la Peter Grant's proposal, you would benefit from it the same as any other producing company.

7685   MR. CASSADAY: M'hmm.

7686   THE CHAIRPERSON: So, I appreciate that you are affiliated with a distributor who would be paying you through part of an internal transfer for payment.

7687   But from a principle point of view, why are you not in the same group as everybody else?

7688   MR. CASSADAY: Well, the one thing that we did ask that perhaps was subtle, so I'll make it very explicit right now, is that within the context of all of the funding that we generate for Canadian program expenditures we've asked for the flexibility to allocate that on a strategic basis.

7689   So, for example, if we were to generate $10-million of CPE against the revenues of country music television --

7690   THE CHAIRPERSON: M'hmm.

7691   MR. CASSADAY: -- but decided that we did not want to invest in country lifestyle programming but would rather put it in somewhere else, that's the one area that we would like to do.

7692   And virtually everything that we do now we do with an eye to developing it for multi platform.

7693   I think that for anybody that's producing TV content that's not thinking about the gaming application, the mobile application and the web application is not thinking integrated and, as a result, they're missing out on opportunity.

7694   So, our view is we try to be consistent in our approach, we don't intervene negatively against other participants in the system, we just -- our philosophy is to try to be proactive.

7695   And also I'd say, even though we are affiliated, you do know that on a number of occasions we have taken views that are quite opposite and our controlling shareholders have never asked us to tell them what we plan to say before we come here, nor have they ever criticized us for what we do say when we come here. They ask us to speak in the best interests of Corus.

7696   THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Well, thank you very much. Those are our questions.

7697   I appreciate your very clear and concise position.

7698   Thank you.

7699   MR. CASSADAY: Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity.

7700   THE CHAIRPERSON: We'll resume tomorrow morning at 9:15, Madam Secretary.

--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1515 to resume on Friday, February 27, 2009 at 0915

   REPORTERS

____________________      ____________________

Johanne Morin         Monique Mahoney

____________________      ____________________

Jean Desaulniers         Madeleine Matte

Date modified:

2009-02-27