Brèves De Tiroir (Essais Et Documents) (French Edition)

---

The answer may be, of course, equivocal at the end of the day, depending on how we think it through, but we'll provide you with an answer. Well, take your time and think about it. I think the vice-chair is asking, you know, because you've got competing competitive questions in your mind. It's fine to open up the retail market, but it may have a anti-competitive activity at the wholesale market, and I think that's what he's trying to get to.

So if you can back to that for the 19th that would be excellent. I don't believe we have any other questions for you. Thank you very much. Please introduce yourself and you have ten minutes for your presentation. Chairman, Commissioners and Staff. The outcomes will be felt across Canada's broadcasting and screen-based sectors and Ontario's Entertainment and Creative Cluster, which I will call the "Cluster" for ease of reference. And the cultural and economic heart that feeds a vibrant Ontario Cluster and Canadian broadcasting system is Canadian content.

The ministry's suggested approach to change is therefore a balanced one that promotes broadcasting policy objectives while responding to Canadians' wants and needs. And the ministry suggests pursuing evolutionary reform, to address only those areas needing immediate improvement in regulatory policy. A Canadian broadcasting system, a system owned and controlled by Canadians. Cancon that is produced, available and accessible, including a significant amount that is independently produced. Specifically, the CRTC should: Introduce a TV BDU-subscriber code of conduct; Consider expanding the prohibition on exclusive programming to make-for-new media programs; and ensure the establishment of an audience measurement system.

In order to create a more level playing field, the ministry recommends decreasing this regulatory imbalance. This is because the current level of traditional TV regulation is essential to maintaining a healthy Ontario Cluster and Canadian broadcasting system, and it is essential to ensure that we can achieve the three baskets of priority broadcasting policy objectives.

I am happy to answer any questions that you might have. Just before I pass you over to Commissioner Simpson, I just want to make sure, when you say "the ministry", are you speaking on behalf of just the ministry, the Minister or the Government of Ontario? They see themselves as a centrally information technology company. And then, you have the OTT animal in the middle, which is a little bit of both.

Well, thank you for the question. Well, we don't have a crystal ball, so -- but certainly all the factors and all the players you describe, in our view, would be part of the future broadcasting system. We see a continued shift of viewers from traditional system to media system, which is why we make a few recommendations in that regard of new media because we do see that the future is an on-demand one where audiovisual content is king and the platform that's delivered on is agnostic.

In your view, as purported a few weeks ago, you made -- I am paraphrasing your categoric statement -- that the broadcasting system, Canadian Broadcasting System is alive and well as far as you are concerned. Well, we have had great success today, up to date, until now. However, it's pretty clear even since we submitted our written evidence in June, that more recent reports have come out, specifically the CRTC's report last week indicating that revenues are starting to decline in traditional system and that many prognosticators indicate that we are moving towards a future online world.

I think that these hearings are being held in an opportune time to be able to address the fundamentals of the system, so that we can actually change the regulatory system now so we can avoid the crisis of the future. Let's put our crystal ball hats or thin hats or whatever on and because you are in a unique position where you are representing a creation industry and economy, the Ontario Cluster.

Well, I think that our position is that here, regardless of the platform it is delivered on, we continue to support measures that would ensure that Cancon is created, promoted and viewed by Canadians. And in fact, we, ourselves, have done a lot of policy work in what the impact of the digital world means for all of our creative industries. Well, part of the government's response to that was in fact to create the Ontario Music Fund and which was announced in the budget, to be able to fund some new activities, particularly in your live space and even some experiments in discover ability to be able to ensure that Canadians discover and access to music in the future.

We have had extensive interaction with the interactive digital media sector in the past year and that initiates well, which is going to a significant change. So, it's another sector that is grabbling with the discover ability challenge. And I think that there will be a world for creation in the future, especially as more and more options are offered online. And with that, I presume you too then support the idea of regulations in that online world to that online broadcaster that also would have them fulfil PNI and the CPEE and other requirements that would ensure success?

We make that clear in our written submission and we reinforced that again today, that because we are platform agnostic and we believe that regulatory measures have worked in the past to ensure the success of Cancon, that we believe that those measures are required in the future to ensure similar levels of success. How do you regulate a server? I mean, you can regulate a hour broadcast wheel. Well, in fact there are models that have been applied in other jurisdictions where regulation has taken place and they were referred to this morning.

We don't have the answers in all the technical issues, but we do believe that there are answers to these dilemmas. There is in fact regulations about content, there can be regulations about availability and there is a whole array of supports that we recommend that can be put into place to ensure that Cancon continues to be made available to Canadians and that the jobs linked to those Cancon requirements continue to grow and thrive and that Canadians continue to get access to those vital stories about themselves and their futures.

Well, in fact we do recognize the need for regulatory reform and we did propose regulatory changes across three of the regulatory baskets that I described in my presentation. We recommend that these Cancon financial obligations for foreign over-the-top providers be addressed as soon as possible in a separate proceeding. I'm still struggling with the idea of -- your proposal was fulsome and in 29 recommendations coming out of it are appreciated, but I'm still struggling with the idea of how -- I see very clearly that your arguments with respect to wanting to broaden a regulation to include new media for the purposes of ensuring that these industries contribute to the spirit and the intent of the Act, but I'm still struggling with the notion of how content is going to be ensured to be seen on the other end, you know, which is -- because what's driving so much of this hearing is not the industry coming forward wanting a change to the status quo, but the consumer indicating that they want more choice.

That starts to tamper with all the models that you are here to try and protect and actually increase protection of. Putting a consumer code in place protects the consumer, but is usually just more relegated to the financial relationship between the BDU and their provision of content services, but it doesn't necessarily result in that content being consumed the way we can control it now through regulation. So I think there are two points that you are getting at, if I'm correct. One of them would be the issue of our recommendation about Cancon promotional obligations Yes, I was hinting at promotion as a part of my line of questioning.

Is that from the new media guys or is it because we expand the universe of money that you are able to draw from? Where does it come from? Well, that's something that would have to be addressed through the evolving business models, but we certainly do not want to see promotional obligations to detract away from Cancon production, because that production is the heart of economic and creative cluster, it's the source of the jobs I described earlier, and if we detract from that to fund promotional obligations they are recommending we will have a major impact on jobs.

Those jobs are important to Ontario's economy. It's a sector of the economy that's growing faster than the rest of our economy and we want to continue to see that growth. So we do advocate for increased promotional obligations. We have had a lot of engagement with the entire entertainment and creative cluster over the past several years. Every industry we have spoken to is grappling with the issue of dicoverability in an online digital world and no one has come up with the magic solution. There are many experiments out there being tried.

So I think to start it's important to note that PNI is very important to Ontario, especially to its independent production sector, which specializes in the genres that are currently captured under PNI. That is certainly something that we welcome. I think our position on Cat. A specialty services is that we recommend that the existing regulatory protections and obligations for a Cat A specialty pay and TV services remain in place, at least until the expiry of current license terms.

And if those protections were to be done away with, there should be a modified genre exclusivity policy for interveners that we could examine hopefully over the course of the proceedings. That's what we recommended in June. The reasons for this recommendation is that the Cat. A specialty services have the heaviest Cancon financial obligations and, in our view, play a vital role in Ontario's entertainment and creative cluster, particular when it comes, as Deborah said earlier, to independent broadcasting.

So doing away with that protection would have a major impact on the production of Canadian content with a resultant impact on jobs and, we would also argue, an impact on the availability of that content to Canadians. So for that reason we have recommended the existing protections stay in place. Chair, has to do with actually a portion of the CMPA submission to the process where they had made a statement that the introduction of pick-and-pay in some form, or pick-a-pack, but let's say pick-and-pay, would have a major negative impact to independent producers because those producers don't, for the most part, have affiliation relationships with broadcasters.

I was wondering if you would comment on that? Well, in our submission we made clear that we had concerns over any form of mandated unbundling for the following reasons. There is very limited evidence that would actually result in lower consumer prices, very little evidence that it would actually result in greater consumer choice, and a great deal of evidence indicating that it would have an impact on a production of Cancon, and of course a resulting impact on jobs and the ECC, as well as an impact on the availability of Cancon for Canadians writ large.

Would that also include any modifications to bundles? I'm sorry, I think I may not have heard you clearly. So you are not in favour of unbundling at all or In our submission that we provided in June we looked at what was on the record at that time, so we have concerns about any form of mandated unbundling. However, at that time there were two models in play I'm trying to understand whether there is a modified view with respect to middle ground here on bundling. So the hybrid model that the Commission had proposed consisted of a mandated skinny basic, plus effectively pick-and-pay, plus pick-a-pack, plus pre-assembled packages.

So our starting point was to question whether or not mandated unbundling is necessary, given the fact that evidence was placed on the record that it appears that Canadians have more choice than their American counterparts. That would be a starting point for us. So unless you see something better you're going to stay with the position, okay. Finnerty, I appreciate your position because I have been an Assistant Deputy Minister as well and I understand the Minister has to attend FPT meetings, those are important as well, particularly in PEI and on the th anniversary of the Charlottetown Conference, but I can't prevent myself from asking a question based on a statement you have put on page 9 of your presentation this morning.

You say, in the second bullet there on the paper version:. Well, in fact what we recommend is that new media broadcasting activities be regulated. We did not recommend that the Internet be regulated, but we are very clear in our submission, both our written submission and in today's presentation, that we believe that new media broadcasting activity should be regulated to support the principles of the Broadcasting Act and to support Ontario's very important entertainment and creative cluster. So you will agree with me, though, that the activities on Netflix, on YouTube and some other online activities is clearly broadcasting subject to the Digital Exemption Order, so by saying what you have said you are in fact asking us to regulate directly those entities.

We are asking you to regulate the new media broadcasting activities that are carried out by foreign over-the-top providers such as Netflix. Does the Government of Ontario currently receive any tax revenues from the purpose online of audio-visual content by Ontario residents, including purchases, let's say through an SVOD or anything like iTunes or Netflix or the YouTube ad revenues we heard about earlier this morning? I'll ask my colleague, John Parsons, to respond to that question.

Some services are subject to HST depending on who is collecting them, others the government doesn't receive sales tax from. Of course, these are also corporate entities that have offices in Ontario as well and may be subject to forms of other taxation. Can you give a sense of how much tax revenues the Government of Ontario receives, for instance by both Canadian and foreign online companies that are providing services or downloads to Canadians in Ontario? We don't have that information with us.

We could undertake to see what we could dig out and supply in time for these proceedings. So you are taking an undertaking for the 19th of September; is that correct? Kornblum, you have 10 minutes to make your presentation. My name is Zachary Kornblum and I am here to speak with you as a young Canadian who is very interested in the future of Canadian broadcasting.

It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that you yourself have spoken with Schulich classes in the past. I have also attended various industry events and spoken to representatives from across the broadcasting and production industries. There are some who look at the new services and think they will mean the end of traditional broadcasting. On the other hand, there are those who look at the data, which does not show significant reductions in consumption of traditional broadcasting, and think that OTT services merely augment the existing system, rather than threatening to replace it.

The report looks at four trends that will intersect: At that moment OTT services will become viable substitutes for traditional BDUs and will begin to directly affect margins. Rogers and Shaw have developed their own OTT service called "Shomi", which has the additional capability of playing through users set-top boxes.

These services are large commercial ventures that are analogous to VOD offerings, but are not subject to the same regulations. BDUs and broadcasters, both domestic and foreign, should not be able to bypass regulation based on a mere semantic difference. Chairman, were quoted saying:. We can target services that either sell to Canadian subscribers directly, with subscription fees, or intend to profit off of Canadian consumers by selling to Canadian advertisers. If a person or corporation is participant in commercial activity in Canada and wants to continue to do so legally, it should have to adhere to the local laws.

If we turn our minds back to , the Internet was not what it is today. We didn't have smart TVs, the Internet was painfully slow, and video streaming was still not necessarily a practicality for large offerings like we have today. Now, we have OTT services that we can watch and interface with and not be able to tell the difference between them and traditional offerings. Since BDUs are the ones who control the system, in a pick-and-pay environment, they will have even more power and the ability to distort natural market forces in new ways. The Vertical Integration Code can be used to prevent BDUs from abusing their power over bundling, subscription mechanisms, and pricing.

To read "preponderance" down to a mere offering of Canadian stations would be to the severe detriment of the Canadian broadcasting system. From scripted dramas like "Lost Girl", "Flashpoint", and "Orphan Black", to home improvement shows like "Love It or List It" and "Property Brothers", to children's television, where our nation is consistently a world leader, Canadians are producing content that is selling well abroad.

Reading the Lemay-Yates Associates report, the policies recommended are explicitly building on the CRTC decision that found that competition and natural market forces would ensure the development of strong Canadian content. I am here today because I think that is still an important goal in these proceedings today. I hope I have been able to contribute to this dialogue with Canadians, and I would be happy to answer of your questions.

As was the case in your initial factum. There's very little grey there, and that makes it clear and actually quite concise in your document today. How do people -- how do your friends consume content? What platforms do they use? I'm at an interesting age where I think you're seeing the way people consume content shifting as people graduate from university and start having partners.

I find the ones that are in law school and such tend to have very limited time and very little money and tend to use over-the-top platforms. You're very quickly going to run out of content on Netflix, at that rate. I think Canadians, on average, watch more than that on traditional platforms. As I said, there's that RBC analysis and I think we are seeing, not a fear that the existing platform as Netflix is going to be necessarily a threat to the traditional broadcasting but it's the potential that these new media offerings have that a lot of stuff as, you know, NFL Sunday Ticket is now being offered over the top, that these new services, with higher internet speeds, are actually going to have the potential to replace it, especially I think we should, because it becomes very hard to regulate when we are seeing a catastrophe and people are unsubscribing en masse and we are seeing the move and the mergence -- I think someone referenced a report made by the CRTC that we are starting to see this decline, and isn't far away and I think that's an optimistic view.

You mentioned a tipping point. What would that tipping point be for you? What constitutes the tipping point? How much consumption should happen online amongst exempt services for there to be a tipping point? So, exactly where that tipping point is, I can't say. But that it exists is something that I believe is true. But if we're going to be worried about a tipping point, shouldn't we be able to identify what that point is, in order to regulate?

I think the tipping point, you'll know after it's happened, when we see people very rapidly switching over. More or less it runs over ITP protocol, it can be accessed around your house, through different devices. It's not the same back-end stuff but user interface-wise, it's very similar. So, I don't know. Exactly how it's going to happen is very complicated -- and, you know, I am proud that we are world leaders in that area but I don't know exactly what will happen. Given that consumption on regulated platforms hasn't really declined, thus far, and that OTT consumption has been complementary to the regulated platform, thus far, how much movement would we need from -- we are September -- to September for us to reach that tipping point?

I think there are a variety of concerns. I think there are ways that traditional BDUs, if they want to, can spend lots of money to delay that tipping point. But I don't think that would be necessarily in the benefit of Canadians. Because it all comes down to who owns the rights and, as these BDUs get more money, they can buy more content, as we're seeing with Netflix. Ergo, they have tools at their disposal. They have to keep the beast at bay, so to speak. Yes, but those tools are spending more and more money that will then be passed to the consumer, in terms of increased costs.

And regulating OTT services, those costs won't be passed on to the consumer? It's not that it won't be. I think I have misspoken. Can you give me a moment? I think the cost of OTT service, to pay to have Canadian content produced is a price, in essence, we do have to pay as a nation if we want to have Canadian content. It seems to be what our history has shown us. Fighting the inevitable move to OTT service, I don't think, is a great strategy.

Integrating these OTT services into our system, I think, is a strategy the Commission should be going after and part of that is imposing on them the same regulations that you impose on every other player. Well, thank you so much. A very clear position. Once again, thank you for coming in. I know that this would be a very particularly daunting exercise. I congratulate you for taking the time to participate.

That's what we were hoping for. You should also know that you have fans on Twitter and I'm sure that we will see you again. So thank you very much.

I would now ask the National Film Board of Canada to come to the presentation table. Mon nom est Claude Joli-Coeur. We also foresaw the marketplace disruption that would ensue, not by the technology per se but from the evolving consumer behaviour that technology enables.

Numéros en texte intégral

Our strategy was based on a firm belief that given the opportunity, audiences would embrace the compelling programming offered by the Film Board. We saw this as providing an additional access point to the NFB and its collection. As Claude mentioned, the NFB is very niche. And these are some areas that I will expand on. We would create a unique destination for our content at NFB. We had a few core principles that guided our project:. Since our launch, we have had over 57 million views of our programming registered on NFB.

Canadian audiences are clearly happy to have access to the richness of the NFB collection; they embraced the opportunity to watch our programming when and where they wanted. And we saw a dramatic increase in our viewership by young audiences, particularly on the iPhone. Over , views of the film have been recorded to date and its exposure has been credited with the development of this young Acadian's career. To date, there have been over 2. You can now download or stream over 2, films from the NFB and view them online, on your mobile devices or on your connected television. This strategy helps us to cushion to commercial disruption in the marketplace, which was felt most particularly by niche content, such as ours.

Some of those elements were:. When we launched NFB. CAMPUS, an online streaming service that gives educators instant access to a vast bank of innovative learning resources. Directed by Tim Wolochatiuk, the film presented effective and engaging learning opportunities among home consumers, institutional groups in health and social services and of course in schools and academic institutions.

We knew that due to the challenging subject matter, we needed to contextualize this material carefully and with the appropriate partners and collaborators. These materials were developed to support the teaching of the history of residential schools in Canada and to assist those who are directly and indirectly impacted by the legacy of residential schools to seek professional support.

Last year, 47 percent of our institutional revenues was the result of our digital initiatives, up from 12 percent in We have learned a few other lessons learned along the way:. ExCentris was looking to expand its audience by providing a video-on-demand service to those who could not attend the cinema. The partnership proved quite fruitful and was quickly expanded to include films previously presented at the cinema. We also expanded the offer beyond the borders of Quebec, enabling regional audiences access to this catalogue of independent films.

As a straight revenue-sharing model, all parties benefit from the revenue derived by the rentals. We'll be opening our platform to third party content and enabling the Canadian independent industry to benefit from the NFB's investment and expertise in digital distribution. We will build on the current successes of NFB.

Je vous confie au conseiller Dupras. Est-ce que les nouvelles technologies ont une incidence sur Donc, les oeuvres demeurent disponibles, le contenu est accessible aux Canadiens et au reste du monde, ce qui est exactement dans notre mandat. Les gens qui cherchent un certain genre de contenu, en venant sur notre site, ont une meilleure chance de le trouver. Your online content, would you describe it as television? Maybe not traditional television, but television in the larger sense? It's a mix, it's a mix of cinema -- it goes back to the '30's -- so it's really a mix of cinema, some television.

So I would say it's a And we have interactive content also. But one thing all those productions at some point have been broadcasted somewhere. They're all screen based to a certain extent? They're all screen based? It's because some people and sometimes I struggle with this too as to what is television in And, in the same way we call our handheld devices phones and we never speak on them.

We use the word "television" perhaps as an expression of something that we have difficulty to fully grasp because it's morphing by the day. So that's why I was asking in the sense For sure, what we're doing is really, we qualify it as a way to broadcast our content. So, for sure, it's Je pense qu'on a fait preuve de leadership, de vision. Oui, parce qu'on voit des plateformes, comme tout. Mais on avait un catalogue, on avait un potentiel de mettre et Rapidement, on s'est fait dire: Nous allons prendre une pause.

So we adjourn 'till 3: Chaque film est un produit unique. Promotion and marketing on all platforms hold the key to increasing the reach of our product at home and abroad and giving maximum exposure to our stories. The "Movie Night in Ottawa" series, now championed by the Honourable Shelly Glover, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, was named by Maclean's as one of the five events that matter most to Ottawa's power brokers, and our "Off the Wall" social media content series features Canadian personalities from different regions of Canada and diverse professional fields sharing their personal memories about Canadian films.

This one-day event, involving 60 participating venues across the country, gives Canadians, particularly the young ones who connect with this format of content, free access at movie theatres, cultural centres, associations, festivals and libraries. We're currently working with our partners on the second edition. At Telefilm we believe that this works better when we work with partners.

Navigation

We have discovered that despite the fact that Canadians are avid consumers of movies on television, there is a strong lack of awareness about Canadian films. French-language films appear to fare better, in terms of awareness and image, but it is clear that the success of both would benefit from stronger marketing. Would the industry benefit from a more coordinated effort, leveraging resources and expertise? What incentives exist that could make this approach deliver results for all involved?

Surely if the wine and cheese industries have seen successes, we can, too. Merci, Madame Brabant et Monsieur Forget. Donc, par exemple, si on voulait On va aller dans les festivals. En faisant la promotion des films canadiens, est-ce qu'on va pas, en effet grandir la tarte?

That's precisely what we've seen in the last few years as a function of Telefilm's participation in individual films. Producers have done a better job of leveraging third-party financing from the marketplace, and part of that is exactly the logic that you just presented.

The extent to which our directors, producers, and so on have been successful internationally and within Canada creates value, creates expectations. When you're building talent, as Carolle was saying a second ago, you create a situation where the market then comes to that talent. The next film, and the film after that, based on success, becomes easier to finance leverages and does precisely what -- I mean that's the best-case scenario, of course, in a risky business, but you create value right across the spectrum. I think that is the point I was getting at, but I think that's precisely our thesis: I don't think we're in the "rob Peter to pay Paul" business.

I think we're saying we need more production, that will, ultimately, then feed the cycle, as you described earlier. And you also briefly raised in your intervention time PNI to long form Canadian films. Would you be in a position to sort of put a little more meat around that bone today and what the Commission can do to help?

Well, I think we were reflecting some of the suggestions that came up at the Flash Conference that we hosted collectively. And we think that these -- we don't necessarily have a plan to put in front of you, but we think that these were suggestions to be mindful of in the context of the hearing. I may be asking other people that question going forward, so you might want to start preparing your answers, but I understand that you were the first one, so you have a valid excuse.

I would now ask Canada Media Fund to come to the presentation table. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues and you have 15 minutes for your presentation. Would you, please, roll the clip? That's a good question. I didn't bring it to the technician. Emmanuelle, do you have it? It was given, yes, okay. So, I'll sing, I guess, while we are waiting on the clip. Or plan B might be that why don't you finish your presentation and we will look at your clip at the end.

As you didn't see by the video, we do know Canadians are deeply engaged by digital technology and great content is central to drive viewing. So, as we all connect the dots in this hearing, we are ever mindful of this critical link between technology on the one hand and content and how it is created in Canada on the other. Canadian content is identified as one of the five pillars got in Canada's digital future and the CMF is a key player in this part of the strategy, and I quote from the Strategy Document:.

The CMF is one of the instruments the Government of Canada has put in place to promote Canadian content online, which will enable Canadians to better celebrate our national story and what it means to be Canadian. And as the Commission has pointed out, critical values and principles of the Act, such as diversity and representation of all Canadian voices in the system are at the heart of this hearing.

The fostering of compelling Canadian programming remains a priority issue. We at the CMF were heartened by the resounding support for our role as a critical player in the system, expressed in many submissions in this process. Can we do more? And can we do better? Our funding program reflects the diversity of Canadians. The CMF would like to correct a few small points and address some of the conclusions of the May 8th report.

A portion of BDU contributions may be directed to local expression and other independent funds. We have never witnessed such broad base successes in Canadian television and in particular, in Canadian drama as in the past ten years. Canadians are watching high quality Canadian programs in prime time. Le FMC n'est pas seulement l'un des contributeurs les plus importants au financement du contenu canadien.

Il s'agit simplement d'un type de contenu distinct. We are delighted that the Commission has recommended adding children's programming to the definition of priority programming. Similarly, the inclusion of expenditures on original online content in Canadian programming expenditures for CPU is forward looking.

Through our ongoing dialogue with our funding partners, our comprehensive industry consultation process and our monitoring of industry trends, the CMF has demonstrated its ability to facilitate change in the television and digital media sectors. The hit and miss vagaries of the market simply cannot ensure that Canadian stories from coast to coast to coast will be made, let alone widely accessible to the public. The CMF is dedicated to the creation of Canadian programming that reflects Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas, values and artistic creativity.

We recognize that the explosive growth in broadband and mobile technology we are experiencing today is not simply an extension of existing media. This tsunami of content, choice in outlets makes this one of the most exciting periods for content creators and consumers worldwide. If broadcast television remains a cornerstone in our strategy to deliver Canadian content, then digital media and platforms are critical to ensure consumer access to Canadian content anytime and anywhere.

We know that "discoverability" is the greatest challenge in a world of infinite content choice and where market forces prevail, "discoverability" will be determined by three factors: How do we let viewers know where to find the shows that have been made for them by passionate and committed Canadian creators and producers? How do we encourage a pride of authorship and ownership for our stories?

The creation of the High on Canada brand is just a first step. We are also looking at how our funding programs can more effectively address "discoverability" in the new digital world. We must ensure that it can be found and succeed across a variety of platforms. As a country, if we want to continue to have Canadian programming that is available to and resumates with audiences at the level it does today, we will all have to take steps to ensure this happens. The CMF supports Canadian stories, voices and diversity in a rapidly expanding global digital media environment and is well-positioned to assist in connecting Canadian content with audiences wherever they are, on television and digital platforms.

We are neutral, work with all stakeholders and balance a broad range of often competing interests with the public interest at heart. Our shareholder is the public. Chair and Commissioners, and on behalf of the Canadian programming industry, we would like to express our gratitude for your recent decision on the Tangible Benefits Policy and we would be pleased to answer any of your questions and can we have the video now? Would you, please, roll the clip.

Search and menus

I think I'll have a few questions for you if that's okay. But there seemed to be a fear that the programming funding streams at the CMF will have been, and will continue to be, oversubscribed, and I got the impression that you thought that that was a bad thing. I would have thought in any market it's probably a good thing to have more demand than offer because it ensures quality. It wasn't intended that we would reflect a sense of fear in that, but recognition that the demand on the programs far exceeds the resources available.

In terms of the future forecasting that we've attempted to do at the CMF, it's clear that, while our revenue sources, at least in terms of our traditional BDU revenue sources, have fluctuated, we don't foresee that the long-term future, the amount of money that we get from that source, is likely to hold, given the behaviour of consumers and the trends that are obvious in the marketplace. While it a sign that strong demand is a sign, I think, of a healthy environment, it becomes, then, a question of choice: I assume your fear would be that on the BDU contribution it would somehow reduce over time.

Same thing with IPTV, which also expanded the platforms. But are you seeing the BDU pie, or gross revenues, shrink over time? Projecting out five years, yes. I don't think it's so much of a fear, but a recognition of a reality that might happen in the country if, in fact, consumer behaviour continues to evolve the way it's evident it has been, in terms of subscriber base, because our revenue is contingent only upon the cable revenue in the system, as you well know. We have to react to what comes in the door to support the programming.

We can't do much about where the market is. That's contingent on others. So a loss indirectly of a DTH subscriber has a greater impact on the contribution you get indirectly than, let's say, a cable subscriber? Yes, so -- or where people are choosing to move from DTH to IPTV, say, or cable, it's a reduction for us even though they may still maintain the subscriber numbers. Okay, because cable and IPTV can direct a percentage of their local reflection So that's the nature of the fear, it's not so much the reduction Well, I'd say we still see -- I mean we follow a number -- we follow analysts' reports on various companies, and overall there's an indication that there will be further subscriber loss.

So whether that comes from people cord-cutting or just people never taking up cable, whatever the Yeah, I'd say we've seen a small loss. But the growth we did experience, we were very lucky for quite a number of years with quite substantial growth. So where new households are created, they're not necessarily taking up cable in any form. Chairman, I think there might be a generational fear as well here: I'm, as it turns out, a pretty heavy viewer, but my daughters certainly aren't.

My and year-olds don't think of sitting down and watching television. They won't even join us for PVR experience now. They're looking at it in a completely different way. Well, it was announced in , and launched in , April , essentially to drive innovation in the creation of Canadian content and application technology. And, you know, it is very diverse, in the sense that it funds different types of content, very different types of content gains, whether they be for consoles, PCs, mobile platforms.

It funds interactive web series, ebooks, portals. It does fund, as well, as I said before, apps and software development. So very diverse, and, again, with a goal to foster innovation in the system and drive innovation back to the mainstream industry. You know, in hearings such as a standing committee, a Heritage standing committee, many interveners have pointed to the experimental stream as having made a big difference to the development of an independent Canadian gaming industry and game companies being able to actually develop and retain and monetize some IP.

We've seen -- so quite a lot of success in the game sector. We've seen, you know, on the software and app side a lot of companies, you know, working, developing second screen apps for broadcasters here and in the U. And now we're pushing that internationally. We just announced yesterday, with the Canadian Trade Commissioners Services, a deal with Canadian technology accelerators in the U. What is the balance between the convergent stream and this stream, the experimental stream, in terms of Actually, it is the program in the CMF whose budget, in a proportional basis, has increased the most since the launch of the CMF in As I understand it, too, it's not an envelope, it's a competitive system.

It is a selective system, and we've devised a model where we employ a jury of experts from Canada and overseas, people with complementary expertise, but in various parts of the digital media sector. It's model that has worked very well for us to this day. And the applicants are not independent producers or broadcasters, it's a wide-open category. It can be, but it's also open to a whole variety of applicants. In fact, in terms of eligible companies, the only criteria is that they have to be Canadian controlled and for-profit.

Now in your presentation, you talked about the challenge of discoverability I would -- well, I'd point out again to some of the second screen applications that we've funded. Truth be told, that would be a majority of the overall number of projects that we've supported, but certainly a few have been in that direction. We fund studies or do our own studies at the CMF, and have done some with certain measurement firms, on social media like Cvibes and others.

If you're referring to: It would be a good place for that kind of experimentation to happen for certain. Now the CMF exists to finance compelling Canadian-made content. I think you'd agree with that. Well, in our opinion, we're all about the content, and, really, it's the content that we need to focus on.

I think the consumer and the viewer audience will respond to good, compelling content regardless of the platform it's on. A little -- and as we look back now, obviously, it was a very visionary approach by the federal government to require any content coming to a fund like the CMF to have more than one platform. So for us it doesn't matter what the pla6tform is as long as the content is great, gets an audience, and is available to the consumer.

Now you explained in your presentation today, and in your written document, some of your issues around promotion for Canadian television programs. I was wondering, though, is there promotion aspects that are part of the production budgets, in a sense, whether they're called that or not. I mean recently we opened up our restrictions around costs for marketing and promotion to be included in the production budgets.

I can't give you the numbers today unless we have them, but we'll certainly find that out. Well, historically, technically it's been 3 per cent of the B plus C of the budget which could be allowable for marketing expenses. As I said, we're expanding the definition of what is considered "eligible marketing expenses" and allowing more in the budgets, but, again, always looking to do so in a way that is complementary and builds on the work that is done by the independent producers, the broadcasters and the distributors, rather than replacing those costs with our funding.

Okay, because that's the risk: Well, given the scope of what we currently allow, I don't think it could fund, you know, entirely the development of an app, for example, but if there is an existing technology. Certainly, as I said before, it could fund promotional efforts that would not be in traditional media outlets, but, you know, online or others, or on social Would it be possible to undertake to provide the information on that amount of, let's say, for the last two fiscal years on an average, the mean I don't think it's all in the databases, but we'll do it for sure.

Now we know that part of the future is linked to exploiting the long tail. You mentioned, in fact, some people perhaps who are reaping where they have not sewn, in terms of some past productions. Well, that's a exploration that we've been undergoing for a couple years through -- really started with our work with Telefilm, and expanded to the CMPA and other groups. What we had hoped might come of that initiative would be that Telefilm and the CMF, at least combined, would develop a fund in which the many titles -- 22,, off the top of my head -- that are still trapped in analogue would be able to become digitized.

So the rights are a bit of a -- a bit of a deep hole when it comes to sorting that out. We've been in meetings with the distribution companies in the country, as well as the unions and guilds, to explore that possibility. We haven't concluded those conversations yet, but we're making progress. It seems a shame because a lot of those projects were funded by Canadian taxpayers, either through their cable or satellite bill or through their taxes. Well, when you look at the list, I'd say it's more than a shame, it's an embarrassment as a country.

When you look at our current regulatory system, in your view are there barriers that prevent producers and broadcasters to innovate? I think the focus in the early years was not so much on the long tail, or existence of that content in future markets, and it certainly wasn't so much focused on how to monetize that content. So I think it's a shift in thinking that we all have to come to arrive at. We believe it affected dramatically the numbers for that show. I think it's taken us a while to recognize how successful Canadian content has been, is, and can continue to be with the right resources put behind it.

It's not just about, you know, finding an app to do it. It's about a clear focus and intent on a stellar piece of content that deserves to be seen by the world. I can't think of any barriers in the regulatory system. It must be Canadian". Our frustration is finding a way to make sure Canadians themselves can access it longer than an month window on broadcast television or in three theatres across the country, if it's a feature film, can access that content on an ongoing basis and celebrate it.

My recollection was that audience data was always a big challenge at the CMF because it's part of the envelop's -- the convergence stream is based on audience success, but some smaller broadcasters are disadvantaged in that environment. We are very supportive of it and would welcome the opportunity to be engaged if further dialogue or working group is set up around that. But that is really a very early stage framework that's in discussion. So, as you mentioned, half of the envelope weight is based on audience success.

So, whether audiences are not measured or they're under-represented in the panels, they are at a disadvantage within our system, we do have other factors which, hopefully, they can leverage to sort of balance out that audience success. We're not yet at the point of being able to say what's a success in some of those projects, but we are certainly beginning to measure them and continue to consult with the advisory group to go forward on that.

We're all here because there has been change in the system. There's been change in the way content is made, viewed, and is accessible to the public. There's certainly demographic change that Glen referred to. I think the risk taking is that there's no certain outcome to these hearings. I think, in past, people, you know, in the hallway back there while you're up there, they're talking about what's going to happen, and sometimes it comes across like it'll be a fait accompli. I think the way this process has been set up, this consultation, it's been so broad and it involved, you know, everyday -- every Canadian has the opportunity to participate in it.

I come from a cable television background and I ran the largest video game studio in the world, and I know that from a technology standpoint there's so many other developments and changes. But you would agree that the status quo is not an option? You listen to all the interests and all the various -- you know, in your next couple of weeks of hearings, you're going to hear people talk black, white, up, down, sideways. This is global, the forces that are at play here.

I would now ask Shaw Rocket Fund to come to the presentation table. Chairman, members of the panel, Commission staff, ladies and gentlemen. Families raise our children and build our communities. As our families succeed, Canada succeeds. We are here today to speak for Canadian children. We must continue to provide them great Canadian content or we risk losing the future adults of this country as an audience. We are world renowned for our quality storytelling, our creative flare, and the values that our programs represent. Otherwise broadcast groups have no incentive to invest in children's programming.

This could cause a further reduction in the creation of original Canadian children's programming. If not the Commission, who is looking out for kids? In a world where nearly everything we do is shaped by media, the Commission has the power to help Canadian children and families succeed or it can fail them. Canadian children -- 21 percent of our population -- are male and female citizens from every culture and background. They reflect all of the diversity Canada is proud of and represent the Commission's own view of the diversity that the broadcasting system should reflect.

And the great news is Canadian kids want to see Canadian programming. And both English- and French-speaking children feel proud when a show they like is Canadian. Currently, 55 percent of English-Canadian kids are viewing TV online and spending close to the same amount of hours watching shows on Netflix and YouTube as on television. It's the number two activity kids do on the Internet.

What is even more interesting is that kids say that parents still influence their program choices, weighing in at 33 percent in English Canada and 42 percent in French Canada. Be the first to review this item Would you like to tell us about a lower price? Customer reviews There are no customer reviews yet. Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a product review. Your recently viewed items and featured recommendations. View or edit your browsing history. Get to Know Us. Delivery and Returns see our delivery rates and policies thinking of returning an item?

See our Returns Policy. Visit our Help Pages.

• CCIE: Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert Study Guide - Routing and Switching
• Are You Thinking Yourself Into Lower Intelligence
• Keeper of My Soul
• From Every People and Nation: The Book of Revelation in Intercultural Perspective
• Advances in Health Economics
• Good Girls (German Edition)