Mr. Nantel, it is important to put that $25 million into context. It was implemented around 1998. At the time, funding for the industry was increased. At the time, the return on investment was still appealing. It was possible to sell albums and to invest in the production of an album. Ms. de Cartier talked about tours. There was significant income at the time and a sum of $25 million played an important role.
Today, incomes are collapsing. Some people have said—incorrectly, in my opinion—that income from the sale of recorded music was collapsing, but that we could recoup the money through live shows. That is not the case for local and Canadian artists who do not have an international career. People like Madonna or Rihanna can decide to give a show in Toronto, Montreal, Washington or Boston. However, a Quebec artist cannot stay in the Gaspé more than four days if there is not a sufficient audience. You can't claim that local artists can recoup significant sums of money through shows. The income lost in disk sales really constitutes a significant loss.
However, I would encourage you to look at the lost income. I was reading this morning that in 2014, Google and Facebook will have $21 billion in revenue from mobile phone advertising, while these companies do not give back any money to the content industry, which nonetheless produces a large part of their services. Perhaps not all of their services, because people conduct searches with Google and do other things with Facebook, but it is clear that a large part of these two services is based on entertainment and music. How is it that this $21 billion in advertising revenue is being completely lost to those who are providing a product for resale, and how is it that there is no return on investment? We need regulation. You have power as far as copyright law is concerned. That could be used to rebalance the situation.