Canadian Heritage Committee on May 10th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to the 58th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a full investigation of the role of a public broadcaster in the 21st century.

This morning we're very pleased because one thing that has come up over and over again is new media. It's great to have you folks from that new media era here this morning.

We welcome as witnesses this morning, from the Department of Industry, Veena Rawat and Bernard Caron; from the University of Ottawa, Pierre Bélanger; from McMaster University, Philip Savage and Christina Oreskovich; and as an individual, Jacques Bensimon.

Welcome to our witnesses this morning. We'll try to keep our introductions to eight minutes if we can, in and around there. We'll try to keep our questions short and concise and try to stay within the time limits of five minutes for questions and answers from each person.

We'll start with the Department of Industry.

[Dr. Veena Rawat, President, Communications Research Centre Canada, Department of Industry]

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

My name is Veena Rawat, and I'm the president of the Communications Research Centre. We are an agency of Industry Canada.

With me today is Bernard Caron. He is the vice-president of the broadcast technology branch at the Communications Research Centre. We call it CRC.

The CRC is an agency of Industry Canada. We conduct research and development in the areas of wireless and satellite communications and network technologies as well as broadcasting. The CRC has the only laboratories dedicated to the evaluation of advanced digital broadcasting technologies in Canada.

As the Government of Canada's main research laboratory in telecommunications technologies, we provide technical advice to departments and other federal organizations on the impact of technologies on their mandate. Our research and broadcasting covers such areas as multimedia broadcasting, interactive television, digital radio, satellite transmission, as well as Internet TV, IPTV, and 3D TV. That's a mouthful.

It will be our pleasure to answer questions relating to any of these technologies. First, I will request Mr. Caron, who will present on some items related to over-the-air broadcasting.

Bernard.

[Bernard Caron, Vice-President, Broadcast Technology Research Branch / Communications Research Centre Canada, Department of Industry]

Thank you Veena.

And thank you Mr. Chair for this opportunity to make this presentation today.

I would like to begin by talking about various technological developments that may impact on the way broadcasters, including the CBC, operate in the future, particularly in the case of over-the-air transmissions. First, I would like to address high definition television and digital TV, mobile TV, digital radio and finally, emergency broadcasting and distributed transmitter networks for regional coverage.

An important development currently taking place in broadcasting is the introduction of HDTV. Most television sets sold today can display high definition TV. We now have the capability to access hundreds of TV channels as well as some HDTV programs from satellite or cable, thanks to the efficiency of digital transmission systems. But in order to deliver HDTV over-the-air to the home, we must replace the old analog transmitters with digital ones.

New digital over-the-air transmitters are now in operation in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Quebec City and Vancouver. These transmitters can provide Canadians with crystal clear HDTV programs free of charge. To view these programs, all you need is an HDTV set with a digital tuner and an antenna... and a transmitter in your area. So far, there are only about 15 HDTV transmitters in Canada. By comparison, there are close to 1,500 transmitters across the United States.

These digital transmitters are also providing broadcasters with a great opportunity to present new services to their viewers. I will describe a few of them.

New over-the-air digital TV stations can be used to transmit a single HDTV program, but it's also possible to use the same station to transmit multiple programs. The picture quality will not be high definition in that case, but it will be comparable to the quality of a DVD that you watch at home. In addition, it will be possible to select many programs from one station--for example, a single CBC station could offer its viewers the option to watch CBC's regular programs, CBC Newsworld, Radio-Canada's regular programs, Radio-Canada's Réseau de l'information, or ArtTV. The total number of program choices that can be offered is in the order of four to six.

Digital TV also enables broadcasters to offer more than one soundtrack. Just as you can select a language option of English, French, or Spanish when you turn on a DVD, similarly a broadcaster could offer its viewers a choice of different languages.

As you can see, the flexibility of digital TV can be used to provide a range of options, such as multiple program choice or choice of language, and all from one TV transmitter.

Over-the-air digital TV also offers the potential for mobile transmission capabilities in environments such as cars, buses or trains. This is being done today, using cellular telephone networks as well as some new broadcasting technologies developed in Europe and Asia.

In North America, we are evaluating proposed improvements to the digital TV transmission standard that is currently used to transmit HDTV. By implementing the proposed improvements, one HDTV program could be received on large TV sets at home, while a second program could be watched on a small, handheld receiver or on small screens installed in cars or trains. The second program could be the same as the HDTV program, but at a lower picture resolution, or it could be a different program with content of interest to people on the move. Technically, mobile TV could be offered to users free of charge or by subscription, in competition or in collaboration with cellular telephone operators.

So far l've talked about changes in the world of TV broadcasting, but we should not forget that a similar revolution is facing radio as well. Digital radio is now available in Canada from two subscription-based satellite radio services. Canadians can also listen to radio stations from anywhere around the world using the Internet. Personal players like the iPod now enable us to download all kinds of radio programs.

The traditional terrestrial AM and FM radio stations are also going through a digital revolution. Technologies are now available to transmit over-the-air digital radio signals. Just as in the case of DTV, this technology can be used to transmit more than one radio program from one station, giving you a choice. Digital systems can also be used to offer new features, such as maps giving you directions to an event or pictures of the artist who is singing on the radio. Digital radio technology can also be used to offer low-resolution TV programs to a mobile or a hand-held device.

Since the beginning of their development, the broadcasting networks have been a great source of information and entertainment, but they also serve as a critical link in case of emergency. Many of us will recall listening to radio or TV during the ice storm in 1998. Radio was the main source of information during the last great electricity blackout, which touched most of Ontario in the summer of 2003.

This emergency capability should be maintained, even when all the broadcast networks in Canada have become digital. It is very nice to watch HDTV or to get maps on your car radio, but in case of emergency you may just want to listen to your battery operated radio to get vital information.

The digital technologies being deployed now also provide an opportunity to improve the capabilities of the broadcast networks to provide many kinds of essential information in case of emergency.

Digital technologies can also be more efficient in covering large areas by using a number of low-power transmitters. The coverage is limited to the area where there is a population. This network will be more affordable to build and operate than the centrally located, high-power stations currently used by the analog broadcasting systems.

Veena.

[Dr. Veena Rawat]

In conclusion, we believe that the new broadcasting technologies discussed today--digital television, mobile TV, digital radio, emergency broadcasting, and distributed transmitter networks for regional coverage--have the potential to provide Canadians with an increased number and higher quality of services.

While digital broadcasting systems are being implemented all around the world, not a single country, from a small country like Singapore to a giant country like Russia, has decided that terrestrial broadcasting can be completely abandoned and replaced by satellite or the Internet.

For many years the CRC has been collaborating with the broadcasting industry, and the CBC in particular, to develop and evaluate various technologies. Canadian broadcasters can use these technologies to address some of the following challenges.

First, as we all know, the telecommunication technologies are changing very rapidly, the quality of the pictures and sound available is getting better and better, the number of available programs is multiplying, and new delivery platforms are appearing every day. But that's not enough: viewers are getting used to interactivity and they are now demanding interactivity. Last but not least, it's the consumers' world, and the consumers are deciding where, what, and when they want a particular service to be delivered to them.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Pierre C. Bélanger, Professor, Institute of Canadian Studies, University of Ottawa]

Thank you very much.

I want to start by thanking you, the members of the standing committee, for giving me the opportunity to share with you my vision of things, my understanding of the power of new technology on the public broadcaster.

As you can appreciate, for a university professor who's wired to talk for three hours at a time, an eight-minute slot is quite stressful. I'll try to be concise.

For 15 years or so I have had the chance to work on the convergence of traditional media and emerging technologies. You will notice in my speech today that I do not refer to new media. I think that expression is no longer accurate. It is more dynamic to talk about the organic nature of emerging technologies, since they are constantly coming out. Take for example the title page of

The Economist: When everything connects.

I think one of the mandates of the Canadian public broadcaster is to try to increase the points of contact and connection with its users, the people of Canada.

Because I am so interested in emerging technologies, I observe current trends. I take pleasure in observing new listening behaviour in young people in particular, those who are referred to as millennials or digital natives.

I think there is a great deal of opportunity here to observe this type of division and fragmentation. Multitasking truly takes hold and is conducive to new modes of communication, which requires CBC to come up with new ways to distribute its content and, of course, produce its content.

One of the directors of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation said a few days ago:

Digital media is now integral to everything we do. It is not an add-on, it is not a novelty, it is the present reality as well as the future.

The BBC, which I will come back to in a few minutes, changed its mandate at the end of 2006 to now acknowledge the place new technology and emerging technologies have in the role and mandate of the public broadcaster.

They see how young people use visual content other than television. I think it is appropriate to provide some statistics here. A recent study, done a few months ago, asked young people which platforms they use when they watch visual content other than on television: 75% of them said on a computer,

on a desktop, 46% on a laptop, 16% on a portable video player, 13% on an iPod, and now the new kid on the block, 15% on cellular mobile phones, which is obviously a huge area of development.

It's so much so, that a man by the name of Michael Eisner, who used to run a little joint called Disney, retired a couple of years ago. He has now launched a series of 80 webisodes or mobisodes of 90-second clips. The series is called Prom Queen, which is obviously extremely timely for the end of the school year. There are eighty 90-second clips aimed at that specific market, to be used either on mobile phones or mobile devices and on laptops. The whole scheme is integrated with Victoria's Secret and all of the stores where girls would see clothing or jewellery advertised or displays on this mobile content. They'd be interconnected within a huge commercial infrastructure.

I think it points to the kinds of developments that are currently taking shape. It obviously calls for the public broadcaster to be trendy and to follow some of these significant developments. I don't think it's just a flash in the pan.

We can acknowledge that all these technologies... The time young people, and people in general, spend on new platforms and digital content is growing exponentially. Not only is Radio-Canada/CBC competing with the biggest producers of content in the world, but also with the famous new phenomenon called

user-generated content and social networking. I'm referring here to the MySpaces and the Facebooks and the YouTubes of this world. These are huge competitors now.

We are also seeing a migration of content from traditional media to new digital platforms. Not only is there a migration of content, but there is also a shift in business models. The decline in the advertising base to new platforms not only significantly threatens the public broadcaster, but all Canadian broadcasters.

There is a phrase I often hear at the university that I find quite symbolic. At the end of class, students say:

“I'll call you tonight” or “I'll see you at the gym” or “I'll see you on Facebook”.

To me this is a completely fictitious universe and yet it is very real. The ever-changing technological developments are an extraordinary phenomenon. I teach in the field of new technologies at the university. Last week, we were discussing content on

mobile phones. Students were comparing their personal experiences with a host of new developments and stuff. One guy was telling us about his experience on Facebook, and the comment he got from another student was, “Come on, Coleman, you're so ten minutes ago.”

This phenomenon of trying to catch up with what the competition is doing is obviously forcing us to constantly think of novel ways to repackage our content. There's a dogma in the new technology world that says produce once, distribute many. I think one of the greatest producers of content in Canada has to be the CBC/Société Radio-Canada. I think we have to give this public organization the means to not only continue to produce as wide a variety of content as possible, but also to multiply and to disseminate its content on as many different platforms as possible.

I imagine we are running out of time, so I will draw this to a close.

To me, the BBC is probably the best example. In that situation the state recognizes the central role of the public broadcaster in the new digital environment. Through its mandate, the BBC is now required to produce and broadcast on new platforms, namely the famous

video on demand, which is the new storm that's obviously preparing to hit us.

There is also the matter of budget. The BBC has begun posting on line

over a million hours of archival material from both the radio and the television divisions of the public broadcaster. I think that in itself speaks volumes about the potential that digital technologies offer to public broadcasting, and I hope this committee will recognize the imperative pressure that should be put on the government to modify and actually modernize the mandate of the CBC, so that it's totally in tune with the current technological currents that are affecting it.

Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

From McMaster University, could we have Mr. Savage, please.

[Dr. Philip Savage, Assistant professor, Department of Communication Studies and Multimedia, McMaster University]

Thank you very much. It is a great pleasure for me to be here with you.

I will do most of my presentation in English, but if you have any questions in French I will answer in kind.

I've been teaching for two years at McMaster University, in the communication studies and multimedia department. For 16 years before that, I worked with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In that capacity, I was involved not as a technological expert on new media but in actually taking the kind of work that the engineers were working on with the CRC folks and putting forward the applications for the transmitters to the CRTC. Part of what I did in that capacity was try to translate into plain language why a public broadcaster should be spending your tax dollars on this sort of technology. It comes down to some of the principles that apply to public broadcasting.

Like Pierre, I don't like the term “new media”. If you study the history of communications in Canada and around the world, you'll come across, from the 1940s, a series of articles about new media--the 1940s. This new media was going to change the world. One thing it was going to do was displace radio. Do you know which new media this was? This was television.

Various forms of platforms have come and gone, and through that, the public broadcaster in this country and public broadcasters around the world have been in a constant flux of reinventing their role to fit those new media, but they've kept to some of the key principles. That's what I want to talk a bit about today, to add to the discussion some of the international perspectives in terms of new media and public broadcasting.

The nub of the story is this. Public broadcasters in mature democracies have had to constantly reinvent how they deliver their programming and enhance democratic communication among citizens. The successful ones in the 1940s, 1980s, and now are supported by their populations in three areas: multi-platforms, public service, and public funding.

First of all, on multi-platforms, the best public broadcasters around the world, including Canada, are what I call “platform agnostic”. They're true believers in the kind of content that comes from their local communities, they're true believers in telling the story of Canadians from across the country, but they're rather skeptical about the latest new media as being the solution to the problem of connecting with their audiences. They're often eager to involve themselves. Where their faith is confirmed is when it reaches and connects with audiences in new ways.

Number two, on public service, it really all comes down to whether the program delivery over a range of platforms is on the basis of clear principles of public service. Quite frankly, as we study the history of public broadcasting around the world, we see that across time, those principles of public service and delivering broadcasting content have not changed dramatically in form or content, although they have adapted to the particularities of the local area and to the potentiality of the new platforms.

Third--since we're here, and you guys have quite a bit of control over some money--on public funding, those public broadcasters that are able to adapt to the new media, again in the 1940s, 1980s, and the new millennium, are able to lead in the experimentation on new platforms as well as carry on the traditions of the best public broadcasting. In that way they're always so “10 minutes ago”, they're so “80 minutes ago”, they're so rooted in the kinds of principles, goals, and passions that people like Graham Spry and Alan Plaunt delivered in this building almost 80 years ago.

I will put on the table, as I've put in the presentation to you, four key recommendations that are supported by the kinds of developments around public broadcasting in terms of rethinking their role in the new media environment. These are four recommendations that I would invite you to consider as you move towards making your own recommendations.

First, I think it's always worthwhile for our parliamentarians to represent the express public desire of Canadians to constantly reaffirm the role of public broadcasting, and specifically the central role of the CBC in the broadcasting system.

Second, as my students would say, it's a no-brainer. CBC is in the middle of new media. To continue a Broadcasting Act that doesn't make any mention of new media--different new digital platforms that leave CBC officially a radio and TV broadcaster--is meaningless.

Third, although it's a difficult nut to crack, this committee will probably have to begin to think about ways to re-examine the blanket CRTC new media exemption. That's a big discussion. We might be able to get into that a bit more. But insofar as one is fully able to bring new media content, in some ways not desirable, into a regulatory framework, in the failure of a regulatory solution, we have at our disposal a way to fund Canadian presence in the new media environment through the CBC.

That brings me to the fourth recommendation. I know you would be reflecting Canadians' wishes if you supported increased funding for CBC based on objective measures of the level of commitment that other mature western democracies make to their funding of public broadcasting.

The CBC, like many public broadcasters worldwide, is adapting to new roles, responsibilities, and possibilities in the context of changing technology, evolving societal demographic and linguistic makeup, and a dynamic public policy environment. For the CBC this is the best of times and the worst of times. Many of us who have studied this closely have envisioned the quite real possibility that the CBC could face extinction--this is something that public broadcasters around the world have been thinking about. In some ways even worse than extinction would be the slow and gradual level of increased irrelevance in Canadians' lives.

However, it is also possible that the tools some of the newest media allow in social networking, in terms of user content production, may provide the opportunity to facilitate a level of public participation in the polity that was the initial dream of visionaries like Graham Spry and Alan Plaunt.

The point is that there is a clear role for public broadcasters like the CBC in the digital age. Your committee confirmed this three years ago when you put it front and centre in the Lincoln report coming out of this committee:

many governments in the Western world continue to spend vigorously on public broadcasting. The reason for such expenditures is the realization in many countries that public broadcasting remains a vital instrument for promoting national values and identities

Almost a year after your predecessors--I think Mr. Abbott was on the original committee--reported in this way, the BBC started the process of renewing its charter. It actually echoed many of the things in your report, but as Pierre mentioned, with a really important vision around digital platforms.

They produced a wonderful document called Building public value, which I'm sure some of you are familiar with. They underlined that everything the BBC could do in programming with new media had to go back to its original public service mandate. It said about the digital world:

That world contains the potential for limitless individual consumer choice. But it also contains the possibility of broadcasting reduced to just another commodity, with profitability the sole measure of worth. A renewed BBC [places] the public interest before all else...some key principles can not be up for negotiation if the BBC is to remain recognisably the BBC. There are that the BBC must be available to everyone, deliver value to everyone and be open to everyone. The public interest must remain at the heart of all that the BBC does.

I see that the chair is raising his pen at me, so I'll take the opportunity, if I may, to introduce someone whose ideas...and certainly her visage is a lot more beautiful than mine. This is one of my students at McMaster University, Christina Oreskovich.

Christina has taken a number of courses with me in the last couple of years. Most recently she did a course on Canadian communications policy, and at the same time, she was unfortunate enough to have to sit through what we call the stats course, the quantitative research methodologies course. Christina and a number of the other students made policy interesting by taking the stats course and actually using it to do a survey of first-year university students. They looked at what the current mediascape is, sort of the beginnings of what Pierre was talking about, in the lives of their fellow students.

So if I may introduce--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Okay. Try to keep it very short.

[Christina Oreskovich, Student, McMaster University]

Okay. Well, I'll be very brief.

Basically, as he said, we did a media study among first-year communications students at McMaster just to see what their attitudes and behaviours were as far as media and new media were concerned. We used the data to generate a generalization of what a university student looks like as far as their media behaviours and attitudes are concerned.

According to the data we have, a typical university student owns a cell phone and a laptop computer and has broadband access at home and at certain locations on campus. And they often download music for free. I think it was something like 93% of the students we surveyed download music illegally. So that's kind of an exciting fact.

The student is an avid fan of YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook. I'll just say right off the bat that Facebook, at my university, is huge. Everybody has it, and if you don't have it, people are flabbergasted. It was pretty explosive how popular it is.

They'll occasionally glance at a blog, but they do not keep one themselves, although some of their friends do.

The student will typically watch TV at least once a day, and they regularly listen to radio, but unfortunately, rarely to CBC radio. They also read magazines quite regularly, at least once or twice a week. For reliable news information, they'll turn to traditional and Internet sources. I was kind of surprised to see that as many students read newspapers as they do, but apparently they do.

This individual relies on the Internet to keep in touch with a wide range of friends. But it's funny, because they worry that they're spending less time with their family and friends because they're on the Internet so much. So it's kind of a contradiction. They're concerned that time spent on the Internet is making them less productive at school, but in the same breath, they rely on the Internet for a lot of information, and they think the Internet gives them a wider variety of opinions.

So these are just some of their views. I'll just skip to the end.

Throughout our study, an important facet of media or new media was interactivity. I know it was briefly mentioned earlier how huge that is. Eighty-three percent of students said that they go on blogs and stuff like that. It's an opportunity for interactivity as far as just regular people being able to become authors and get their opinions out there and tell people what they think about various aspects of whatever they choose.

If we're asking whether new media is replacing traditional media, our data didn't really show that at all. People are still just as much engaged with traditional media as they are with new media. What they are doing, however, is using new media to supplement some of what traditional media provides. So if I want to watch Grey's Anatomy at 8 p.m. and I can't watch it at 8 p.m., I can go on YouTube and maybe get clips of it, or I can download it from the Internet from alluc.org. So I have an ability to still engage with traditional media, but not directly. It is more through new media.

I know that this is about public broadcasting and the future of the CBC, so I'll just cut to the chase. Basically, what we were asking is: does the Internet fulfill the role of the public broadcaster? In other words, does the Internet provide a space for discourse free of corporate interests? There's no denying that the Internet obviously provides a space for people to voice their opinions through websites, blogs, and those different vehicles. However, simply because there is an area provided to do so doesn't mean that these voices have an equal opportunity to be heard. For instance, there is only a handful of popular search engines. If your website isn't linked to Yahoo! or Google or something like that, you're not going to get the exposure that allows your voice to be heard.

So the role of the public broadcaster is integral to cultivating a Canadian identity. We cannot leave this responsibility to the uncertainty of the Internet.

Here are just as a couple of stats. Twenty-seven percent of students surveyed claimed that they somewhat or strongly disagreed that when compared to traditional media, they find more Canadian information on the Internet, and a large portion were neutral--they neither agreed nor disagreed. So either people aren't searching for this information or it's not being supplied. Then there is something like cbc.ca. Whenever I did a paper or anything like that, where I needed good, solid, credible Canadian information, cbc.ca was always my first stop, because I knew that what I was getting was credible and valid.

Basically, we think it's of fundamental importance that the CBC take advantage of new media platforms to help increase its popularity among young audiences, because we need our public broadcaster to be strong--now more than ever.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you.

Monsieur Bensimon.

[Jacques Bensimon, former Government Film Commissioner and former Chairperson, National Film Board of Canada, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Si vous me permettez, my presentation will be larger and a bit wider than just sticking to technology, because having ended my mandate as a film commissioner, I think I've had the privilege to see our industry from a vantage point of view and I'd like to share that with you.

I want to stress “former commissioner” because I am surprised that five months later, my successor still has not be appointed. I hope this will happen shortly.

From the outset, I must admit that I am a staunch defender of public television as a guarantor of democratic balance. However, I think the people at Radio-Canada and CBC have to be accountable to the Canadian public. So far, I feel that Radio-Canada has shown that it is more concerned about competition than service.

Is everything being caught, in terms of translation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Go ahead.

[Jacques Bensimon]

This concept of service has to be the basic foundation. To prepare for the future it is crucial for CBC to think in terms of public good and sharing rather than in terms of monopoly and competition.

In terms of track record, before I discuss new technology, I wish CBC was more embracing in the way it has been doing things so far. I'll give you an example. When I was film commissioner, the only way CBC could conceive to work with the NFB was to absorb the NFB, basically; there was no other way to do business with them. So today on CTV or on Global, you have more NFB product than you have on CBC per se. It is very strange that an institution of $1.5 billion cannot work with an institution of $80 million, and yet CBC finds enough money to purchase a network such as the Documentary Channel, and they have already purchased a network called Country Canada, which as far as I'm concerned, as far as the audience is concerned, are not really visible on the screen.

Another initiative I think CBC could have taken over the years--the CBC has not displayed leadership on that front--is with the provincial networks.

In the case of Télé-Québec, TVOntario, Knowledge Network, CTV Saskatoon,

CBC could have been a leader, because those networks are very poor. They don't have the means to be exposed. Yet they make a lot of very good products, and if CBC could be a federator at that level, it could help us to see a vision of this country across the country, province by province.

On our national cinema, we invest a lot with Telefilm, with tax credits, with all kinds of things. Across the world, every major public broadcaster has a branch that invests in cinema. Not CBC. CBC again is free to run on its own and decide and pick and choose which films it will invest in and at what rate.

In France, England and Germany, public broadcasters invest in cinema.

I'll cite Mr. Andreas Weiss from ARD in Germany, who said the film The Lives of Others, which won the Oscar in 2007, was done because of these investments in public television, and nobody has contradicted him.

Another point before I get into new technology is CBC and international. I'm flabbergasted, and to this day I have to guess what CBC is trying to do on the international front. For example, the BBC, which has been cited and I will cite, has created a structure called BBC Worldwide, which brings in $1.7 billion in revenue from the sale of its product, the sale of its format, and the sale of its concept. In that sense, I'm still seeking what the CBC is doing on that front.

On top of that, besides selling programs, which is not the business of the day--the famous “10 minutes ago”--it is more about selling signals, selling networks. You could be in Buenos Aires today or you could be in Istanbul and watch a Japanese network, a Korean network, or a British network. Not so with Canada. Where are we? If we're talking about a global market, where are those Canadian images that should be seen around the world? CBC could have played a leadership role at that level. And that brings me to new platforms.

When they came to meet with us here, the CBC representatives asked for a 10-year vote of confidence in order to make the switch to new platforms and technologies.

This is a huge quantum leap of faith to ask for, as we live through technological changes that occur literally on a monthly basis. I'm more generous than my colleague.

In the area of new platforms, the CBC talks more often about the nuts and bolts than content. In other words, what it needs the nuts and bolts for. In the meantime, a real revolution has begun and the CBC seems to be planting a few trees in front of the forest to hide the woods.

In concrete terms, how will it stand out from private broadcasters? In my opinion, the challenges it is facing will have such incredible consequences that I recommend to your committee extending these discussions and decisions in order to hear from even more experts, as you are doing now, and not just CBC directors. In the framework of traditional television, the CBC has often played the competition card, but now, we can only prepare for the technological future if we act in partnership with others.

If there is a network in the world that has made a technological turnaround, it is the BBC in England.

We haven't consulted each other on this, but each one of us has cited the BBC as a model.

The BBC has partnered with YouTube and expanded its search engine with Google.

YouTube has 20 million visitors per month. As the BBC Worldwide director of digital media has said, they can teach us a lot.

The partnership with Google will bring about the creation of three new channels on the Internet and for cell phone users.

In the same frame of mind, BBC has signed deals with South Korea through TU Media Corporation. They have also signed agreements with U.S. companies, such as Azureus, an online distribution BitTorrent, and Joost, which is a P2B broadband distribution venture by the people who invented Skype.

In the new global market, the CBC cannot be the end-all and be-all and operate alone. The most important changes are not going to be coming from the technological choices alone, but they have to come from the content.

The revolution, and it's been cited again, is a new source: user-generated content providers. I insist on that because content is made by citizens--not by professionals alone, but by citizens throughout our country to be seen by their peers in Canada and in the world.

These types of experiences are occurring right now in Canada, among other things, Homeless Nation, is a project by which young people create their own network on the street and help each other find their own solutions. CITIZENShift and Parole citoyenne are Internet sites where people create and exchange with one another. ZTV, which CBC used to broadcast, had this type of potential, but these investments were sacrificed and transferred to more traditional and commercial projects.

The new platforms are radically changing the concept of network, product format, creation process and copyright. CBC does not want to blend in with the rest, but it has to incorporate these changes. This is not a matter of making cosmic changes such as asking Canadians to vote on the most beautiful place in the country, but to truly involve citizens in overhauling the definition of public service.

One of the patrons of the German channel, ARD, who supports the concept of

user-generated content, has said the following: “UGC can only have an impact on public knowledge when it is broadcasted on general forum platforms”. The public broadcasters can play an important role by providing a powerful yet impartial stage for public debate.

Is anyone in our Canadian landscape advising us to take such steps? While IPTV, Internet protocol networks, are seeing the light of day at minimal cost, the CBC is still busy buying older networks, such as documentary channels, caught once more in the old paradigm and in the concept of competition rather than complementarity.

CBC representatives appeared before us to ask for an additional $60 million to start making technological changes. The BBC's reform plan was cut by $8.61 billion over six years by the English government. The government asked the BBC to come up with the equivalent of $3.9 billion Canadian to cover the technological changes. At the CBC, the opposite is happening: they keep making new requests for additional funding. The approach is simple: “You pay, we do”.

It may be true that the CBC needs more means to convert to high definition and it is true that it needs more means to stay in the race, but before talking about new investment by the Canadian government, let us be sure that the CBC, like the BBC or the NHK in Japan, brings its house in order first. We cannot try to be all things to all people at the same time on the radio and television. We cannot compete digitally and catch up technologically without making choices.

But in order to do this, they'll have to shed their old skins: CBC cannot continue to invest in the studios, the office spaces, the staff that they presently have and hope to reinvent themselves from inside out.

In conclusion, what I would say to this committee is that you have a fairly complex situation in front of you. I don't think it should be left to the CBC to define its future, but I encourage you to do what your predecessors have done in the past. I'll remind you of a commission called the Applebaum-Hébert commission. I think it's time this country had the courage to put together a commission that would help to redefine what the solution is for the CBC in terms of a new platform. Nobody's questioning the fact that they will get into it. How they will get into it, in what frame of mind, is the most important thing, in my view.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

Now we will go to questions.

Ms. Fry. We'll try to keep them to five minutes.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I have to tell you how absolutely excited I am about all of your presentations. I think you have opened up exactly what we need to talk about. I liked the new media presentation, and I think the last presentation by Mr. Bensimon was a very important one.

Does Industry Canada see itself playing a role? Given that you are working in cooperation with Canadian Heritage on an ongoing basis, do you see yourself having a role in assisting CBC fiscally, and in other ways, to move into the digital media, to really expand as quickly as they can? I think that's the issue. It's not as if they can do this in five years; they need to be doing it yesterday. So I'm asking if you see a role for Industry Canada there.

Many people talked a lot, but I think it was Ms. Oreskovich who talked about a time-shifting component in the new or digital media, which I think is important. In other words, you don't have to see the program when it's on; you can see it whenever you choose to, such as on your iPod on the bus, if you wish. So I think that's a key component we should talk about.

I also was impressed by the international place for CBC. When we started in 1997 at UNESCO, Canada played an important role in moving CBC forward as an international player, using this whole concept of taking on an international role. That seems to have gone by the wayside and we have lost this innovation that we had brought forward.

What do you see as the international role for the CBC? How do you see us doing that, given that we're competing with CNN mostly, and with BBC, in terms of news coverage, etc.?

Finally, I would like you to tell me just a little bit more about how you see CBC moving away from its tendency to want to do in-house production and to be able either to partner with co-productions internationally or to take independent productions and increase its profile on the cinematic stage, on the actual full-length movie stage, in the way that the BBC has done.

Those are the three questions I'm hoping you can answer.

[Dr. Veena Rawat]

Thank you very much.

Starting with the Industry Canada question, I can certainly comment on the collaboration from a technology perspective or a technology development perspective. The CRC has been working with CBC in looking at the development of the new platforms—any part, from Internet to IPTV, to forward-looking, three-dimensional TV. That is the collaboration we have been having.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

If you're collaborating on it, though, do you see a role in actually making it happen--putting the money and the resources into actually doing it now, rather than talking about it?

[Dr. Veena Rawat]

Again, the role we play is from a technology perspective. And then there is a role, from Industry Canada's perspective, together with other government organizations involved in broadcasting, for others in making it happen. So Industry Canada is not alone in that role.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Mr. Bensimon.

[Jacques Bensimon]

You have three questions for me. Concerning CBC internationally, I think it is simply a matter of the CBC, as a public institution, having to take the leadership in this country for private and public broadcasters to gather together and be able to go after the international market. It's fairly easy.

Today, when the Korean or the Japanese are able to be on the different menus of networks across the world, it is simply because they export their programs, because they've freed the rights in order to do so.

I would remind you that CBC made an attempt to do this in the U.S. about five years ago, and then they sold that network and never came back on it. In my opinion, the CBC doesn't think globally; they think about selling their product, but they don't think about selling their signal.

If you take, for example, Tout le monde en parle, which is a most important success in French Radio-Canada, it is in a format that has been brought from the French. So we've moved away from the usual trade business of my selling you a product and your paying for it, to selling full signals.

And there are demands around the world for the quality that the CBC could give if they federated public and private players. You could imagine the Bells of the world talking to the CBCs of the world in order to have a Canadian signal, a Canadian TV5, if you want, which would go worldwide. That is conceivable. We could get into the details of it.

The second question had to do with the independent producers. It's fairly simple. It's being done across the world, and that's my point in asking whether the CBC needs the infrastructure that they have across Canada. Do they need all the staff that they have across Canada?

You simply have to go to the example of Alliance Atlantis, or you have to go to any new network. When Channel 4 was created in the U.K., there was no infrastructure. You don't need infrastructure, because as has been said, it gets old fairly fast.

So bring that down to its bare minimum, and then operate from there. The money that you will be freeing should go into the independent producers' world, because that's where the products are coming from anyway.

At this point in time, what you're seeing is that CBC is protecting its old universe. It is double-dipping into the Canadian Television Fund. It is dipping into its own product. It is dipping into revenues from publicity. But in order to maintain what? A huge infrastructure.

The way you would get to independent producers is by freeing yourself from the old universe as you're getting into the new-platform universe, and you'll be able to invest that in the independent milieu and enrich what needs to be done in this country in terms of the independent producers.

Your third question, which dealt with full-length features, is fairly simple. In France you have an organization called the CNC. In England you have an organization called the UK Film Council. It is the law that broadcasters and public broadcasters have to invest in the development of the feature film industry. They each have created a subsidiary that invests in the development of feature films.

Can you imagine the $240 million that is presently in Telefilm Canada easily being doubled? I don't think I'm speaking through my hat by saying you could fetch money from those sources, from our broadcasters, who will eventually end up putting those products on their network. But they are waiting for the product to be finished so they can buy it for 2¢ rather than investing and taking the risk of investing in the development of our film industry.

That, in my view, is the answer to your three questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Schellenberger]

Thank you for that.

The next questioner is Mr. Kotto.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your informative presentations. They were exhaustive. We now have enough information to make recommendations. You made some and they were on point.

Mr. Bensimon, some witnesses are asking us to give CBC and Radio-Canada adequate funding within the parliamentary envelope. You suggested there was disorder at the CBC and before allocating any additional funding, it should bring its house in order. Is this also true for the French-language section, Société Radio-Canada?

[Jacques Bensimon]

Again, both entities need to be assessed differently. There is no doubt that there is a big difference between the two. In my opinion, there is more work to be done on the English side than on the French side. The French side is on the right path, but the Radio-Canada management team and board of directors have to do some brainstorming. For example, in Montreal they have to concern themselves with the relocation of a tower or whether low income housing should be built. Such issues overburden the managers at the broadcaster who, in my opinion, having nothing to do with this.

I feel that Radio-Canada, in comparison to CBC, has shown discipline by conducting a more thorough analysis of content. However, the fact that Radio-Canada is part of the CBC weighs it down with responsibilities that belong to the entire corporation.

I would argue that there is one area in particular where both entities have gone wrong: they have completely gotten rid of feature length documentaries and short documentaries from the general interest channels. The documentary is a format that was literally invented in Canada, where we have a lot of strength in this genre. CBC no longer broadcasts documentaries during prime time. They now broadcast them only on the speciality channels. Radio-Canada may have two niches and these shows have to be formatted in order to fit in these two niches and allow the presenter to do so.

SRC is affected by the entire corporation and has to have more discipline than the CBC. We have to give this some serious thought. If not, you will be setting up a structure of new platforms on quicksand. As long as you have not resolved your problems, it will be difficult to incorporate new platforms and new technologies because they will have the same flaws they currently have. Take stock of the CBC and SRC before making new investments.

[Maka Kotto, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much.

The word “platform” is used often, but I quite like the new expression “emerging technologies”.

Witnesses have told us to invest in this area at all cost. Mr. Bensimon and you, Mr. Bélanger, have mentioned content. In my opinion it is essential and fundamental. You spoke of current platforms that do not have any content illustrating creativity, wealth and identity.

How could we assess the importance of this technological revolution from the point of view of the audience? In order to compare traditional media to new technologies, have you established statistics on the number of people who have clicked on a given platform to find out certain information, at certain times, on certain days of certain weeks?