Thank you, everyone.
Consumers today want to watch what they want, when they want, and where they want it. They want to watch their favourite show at 8 p.m., but if they miss it they would rather see it later. They want to see content on their TVs and on their mobile devices and computers. A business plan or public policy initiative that does not come to grips with this aspect of consumer behaviour is doomed to failure.
There are many experts who predict that all television viewing will migrate to the Internet. Already we see services like Hulu in the U.S. These over-the-top providers threaten to put cable television providers and perhaps Canadian broadcasters out of business. This process is called disintermediation, and it has already replaced many bricks-and-mortar businesses with online businesses.
The “anywhere, anytime” vision, however, does not mean it is inevitable that all video viewing will take place from the Internet. We believe over-the-air broadcast networks and cable television networks could be with us for some time to come. But to survive, these networks need to be efficient and give consumers the functionality they demand.
So what can Canadian cultural industries do to benefit from developments in the emerging and digital media and prepare for future developments? We'll answer this question from the perspective of Rogers Cable and how we are hard at work giving customers anything, anytime, and anywhere by upgrading the Canadian television experience using modern digital technology.
Digital television viewers can see their favourite channels from other time zones, giving them a time-shifting option to watch their programs earlier or later than they air locally. Personal video recorders--PVRs--are also used by 20% of our customers. They allow consumers to easily record, fast-forward, rewind, and pause television programs. In addition, a large number of programs are available on video-on-demand, allowing customers to watch them whenever they want.
Rogers on Demand also offers Rogers on Demand Online, a service we launched last November. The vision behind this service is that consumers can watch the shows they subscribe to either on television or on the Internet, on a PC. While not all TV programs are yet available on RODO, we do have a very healthy offering of over 37 content brands. The service has been very well received by consumers. In the future, we intend to expand the service to mobile phones as well.
Digital technologies can also do more for the broadcasters. Cable operators in the U.S. are beginning to develop targeted advertising platforms so that different ads can be sent to different people, depending on their neighbourhood or their preferences. One of those is called Project Canoe.
This would allow TV broadcasters to charge more for their ads, which in turn would improve their business cases. In effect, it would make television advertising more targeted and measurable, like Internet advertising is today.
Ken.
:
If Rogers succeeds in harnessing digital technology to modernize its cable television service, it means that the CRTC can continue to impose the Canadian content regulations it imposes today. These have served Canadian cultural industries well. For example, 55% of a television network's content has to be Canadian. However, if all television content migrates to the Internet, Canadian television will lose the benefit of Canadian content quotas.
We need the CRTC to adopt flexible policies to aid us in this transition, and with one notable exception they have. They have allowed us to put television programs on video-on-demand and to insert fresh ads so that broadcasters will have an incentive to provide programming to us. They have not imposed taxes or fees on our Internet service. They have indicated a willingness to allow us to sell ads on our U.S.- originated cable programming to pay for a targeted ad system, as U.S. operators do.
The one area of concern we have is the CRTC's recently announced value-for-signal decision. This will require us to pay large amounts for linear television at a time when customers are increasingly moving away from linear TV to watching on-demand and online.
There are also policies the federal government could adopt. For example, pursuant to section 19 of the Income Tax Act, Canadian firms cannot claim advertising expenses as an income tax deduction when they advertise in U.S. magazines or border TV stations.
The same rule should apply to U.S. websites. This will make it more expensive to place ads, for example, on Hulu, if it comes to Canada. The aim should be to make sure that Canadian advertisers prefer Canadian-owned and -operated services.
Federal tax credits should also be available for online content. The existing rules only allow credits for filmed entertainment production. Some provinces have moved in this direction, such as B.C., Ontario, and Quebec.
Canadian copyright payments are also out of control. We pay more copyright both for online and traditional media than U.S. media companies pay. This makes it hard for us to adapt and compete. For example, digital copies of music are more costly to download online than if purchased on a CD because of copyright tariffs and levies. Piling on additional copyright payments for digital media will continue to drive consumers to acquire music and other copyright products through unlawful file sharing on the Internet and to unregulated U.S. over-the-top providers like YouTube.
It is also a mistake when copyright discourages broadcasters from modernizing their operations. For example, if a radio station plays CDs, they face two different copyright payments. If they load the CDs into a server, they could have to make four more payments. Canadian radio stations pay twice as much in copyright payments as American radio stations. This is particularly disturbing since over half of the copyright payments go outside of Canada.
Canadian copyright payments need to be kept in check or Canadian radio broadcasting will not be able to compete against the Internet or other new technologies. This is one reason why we don't have Internet radio stations, and are now inundated with foreign services from more cost-effective territories.
In the U.S., PVRs are becoming more cost-effective by using the network PVR. A PVR is just a digital cable box with a hard drive in it. The network PVR centralizes the hard drive at the cable company's primary headquarters. This means that all digital boxes can be PVRs, giving all customers the flexibility of the PVR at a greatly reduced cost.
The last version of amendments to Canada's Copyright Act, Bill , specifically prohibited the use of the network PVR by cable operators. We think this a mistake that should be corrected in the next copyright bill.
Rogers recommends a balanced approach to copyright reform and implementation of the WIPO treaties that will continue to reward innovation and creativity.
If we succeed in our vision of providing customers with television on any platform, it clearly will be good for our business. As discussed before, it will also allow the continuation of the Canadian content regulatory system. It will also allow creators of artistic and cultural content to be compensated for their works. An environment where all content is available free on the Internet does not provide the creator the ability to be compensated for their works. Our model will preserve the existing value chain and allow all providers to be compensated.
We do not believe changes to foreign ownership rules will have an impact on Canadian culture and content. Canada's foreign ownership rules can be changed for telecommunications carriers and cable companies. These businesses are primarily pipes that carry content. The foreign ownership rules can be preserved for the content providers. Radio and TV stations and specialty channels can remain in Canadian hands. This would provide the capital-intensive distributors with lower-cost access to foreign capital while ensuring that the vital content producers are Canadian.
Thank you.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Thank you all for this opportunity to be here today and be a part of this discussion about this important study of emerging and digital media.
My name is Mark Bishop. I'm originally from Saint John, New Brunswick, and I now live in Toronto. I'm pleased to be here today to speak on this subject. I'm a board member of the CFTPA. I know that two of our staff appeared before you last week, and I support their remarks.
I'm the chair of the board of Interactive Ontario. Ian Kelso, our president, appeared two weeks ago, and I support his remarks.
I'm here today as co-founder and executive producer with marblemedia. Marblemedia is an integrated digital media production company. We are uniquely positioned in the marketplace in that we create content and distribute our own 360-degree multi-platform content.
We've grown from a shop of two in my dining room, nine years ago, to now 30 full-time employees in our studios in Toronto. We generate $15 million to $20 million in convergent production revenues every year.
Our focus from day one for the company has been on content, on telling stories that engage audiences on multiple platforms. We've pushed the envelope of experimenting with new platforms from the beginning of our company. High definition, web TV, mobile, convergent, transmedia--you name it, we've done it.
All of this has really been with the support of a number of the funding agencies in Canada that have allowed us to grow our company. The Telefilm Canada new media fund, the Bell broadcast and new media fund, now the Canada media fund, and many others have provided a springboard for our growth and allowed marblemedia to be seen internationally as a leader.
We were awarded Company of the Year at the Canadian new media awards in 2008, and we were named an “international next generation content producer” by the Hollywood Reporter last fall.
Our success has been in prime time and youth programming on all platforms. Some of our titles include Taste Buds, deafplanet.com, This is Emily Yeung, and This is Daniel Cook.
I wanted to mention This is Daniel Cook. I know it was mentioned as a reference by my colleagues at the CFTPA last week. Again, it's a cross-platform preschool series, for which we produce the web and TV in Canada. We've sold the television series internationally to 90 countries, and it has been dubbed into 11 languages. We created a six-volume DVD series, a soundtrack, books, and even a visit on the Oprah Winfrey Show.
We've also sold the web content. The interactive web games and mobile content have been licensed internationally to broadcasters and game portals. The interactive site “thisisdanielcook.com”, the preschool property corresponding with the television show, had 1.7 million hits per month at its peak, with a 14-minute average time that our preschoolers were visiting the site. That's pretty impressive when you think of the fact that it's a six-minute television property that we're talking about.
I share all of this to show that the investment of government in the content production industry works. It creates content for Canadians to enjoy, it creates jobs in Canada, it builds companies capable of export through the sales of Canadian cultural content internationally on all platforms. The investment provides a springboard to allow marblemedia to be a world leader in convergent storytelling. Our award-winning projects now attract foreign producers to increasingly work with marble and invest in our Canadian stories.
These new partnerships are emerging with lots of different players, content aggregators. One example is a new marblemedia digital web-based project with a company called Vuguru. They're an L.A.-based digital studio founded by ex-Disney CEO Michael Eisner. We've just committed to a new project with them where marble will produce and distribute the project in partnership with Rogers.
Another marblemedia project is a TV and web pre-licence of a new cross-platform kids series. We have presold the television and the interactive to the BBC and to ABC Australia, which both came on first, and then they encouraged our Canadian broadcast partner to come on board.
So there is lots of activity, but there is room for improvement, which I'll touch on today.
To get back to some of the things that are working for independent content creators, announced the official announcement of the CMF, the Canada media fund, on March 26. For us, that was an important link between the television and the interactive funds. It has sparked a great industry dialogue, one that has been ongoing for the past year. It has pushed broadcasters in Canada to think differently about content. It encourages experimentation in business models and storytelling.
With changes in social and technology trends, content is becoming platform-agnostic. Whether it's broadcast on TV, streamed online, or available for download on the...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...storytelling can now be a multi-screen and interactive experience.
The creation of the CMF is reflecting this new reality. It will have a positive, long-term effect on the independent content producers.
Our recommendation is to look at stabilizing the fund beyond one or two years. A five-year commitment from the government would allow for all stakeholders to develop longer-term business plans.
We'd also recommend looking at triggers other than TV broadcast, which is still the gatekeeper to unlock the funds with this new initiative.
The tax credits are another financial initiative to discuss. The TV and film tax credits are available federally, and most provinces have provincial tax credits. On the interactive side, the tax credits are still separate, and only exist in a few provinces, such as Ontario. The tax credit was intended to allow capitalization of companies and springboard their growth. This capitalization is key, although most have to reinvest their TV tax credits in projects, which was not the original intent. The drought of capitalization in this regard is crippling many companies.
The interactive tax credits, however--in Ontario as an example--have really allowed us at marblemedia to invest in R and D, to invest in new technology and innovation. Our recommendations are to review those policies, to expand the federal television and film tax credit to include new media, and to review those trigger points, as mentioned before, to not just include television broadcast.
On the national digital strategy, I was very pleased to have an opportunity to revise my comments based on yesterday's great news. From the mention in the throne speech and now the plan moving forward with industry and stakeholder consultation, the strategy is exciting to see. It's great to see that content is at the core, and is working with industry.
Digital media is crucial to both Canada's cultural and economic future. As Minister Moore said yesterday, “We recognize the important role the digital media and content sector plays in the digital economy, and we intend to develop a long-term plan that will stand the test of time.”
All of this will allow us to compete with others who are ahead of us, such as Australia, New Zealand, and Great Britain. We need top-notch pipes and wires controlled by Canadian companies and filled with our Canadian professionally produced content. Canadians will watch and will interact with our content if we make our compelling content available on the appropriate platforms.
We are delighted to see the government at the table leading this dialogue. Marble will continue to be an active participant in these talks, which include our partners at the CFTPA, Interactive Ontario, the National Film Board, and others.
On the subject of terms of trade, we feel that terms of trade are needed to help level the playing field. Producers are now having to bring on multiple broadcasters and multiple platforms, and often are faced with the difficult task of giving up their rights for no additional fees. It's tough work to negotiate, because the reality, with the producers and broadcasters in their tug of war, is that the broadcasters control all, as they have the key to unlock the CMF, the Bell fund, the tax credits, and other financial incentives.
Terms of trade are necessary to make this model of content export and revenue generation work for the entire system. We need to keep independent producers with independent voices at the heart of this. We were pleased to see that the CRTC expects the 2011 licence fee renewals will include this.
On the topic of foreign investment, we see the co-production treaties only reflect film and television. They're dated and they need to be revised. Our co-production treaties need to embrace interactive content and interactive platforms. As Canadian licence fees decrease from the broadcasters--and we see that more and more--we need partnerships and foreign investment into our content.
In closing, we at marblemedia are excited for the future of content production. Canada can and must be a world leader in the digital content age. We need the government as a partner to support our business by fostering a climate of innovation, storytelling, and export. Your collaboration is key.
The national digital media strategy is an ongoing discussion and is integral and vital to our future success. It puts professional content at the core, and access to that content on Canadian-owned services is key. The creation and distribution of content--again, professionally produced Canadian content, the majority of which would hopefully be from independent producers--must be available for Canadian audiences on whichever Canadian screen-based platform they choose.
Terms of trade are necessary to ensure equity and fairness in the system of independent producers and broadcasters. They allow all partners to conduct business fairly, and they allow new revenue streams to be realized.
It's time to review and update the existing programs, like the Canadian film and video production tax credit, the co-production treaties, and even the CMF. We need to look at full cross-platform content. TV broadcasters shouldn't be the only gatekeepers to trigger those funds.
As Canadian independent producers we will continue to innovate, adapt, learn, take risks, and push the limits on the new digital universe to tell our stories to audiences.
This concludes my comments. Thank you for the opportunity and for taking the time to conduct these proceedings. I look forward to questions.
:
You are all using up my time.
It is good that I have more time: I am going to need it because I have several questions. I am going to make some comments and then end with a question.
I am a little uncomfortable telling you this, Mr. Engelhart, but you do not provide a lot of service in Quebec apart from wireless. But I am still going to pass on some comments I have received about Rogers, and they are not fun to give or receive.
I have heard that Rogers may not be a good corporate citizen and that you may be in the business of television like someone else might be in the business of selling handbags. But making television is a privilege. It is a privilege to be able to provide one's fellow citizens with information and entertainment.
Making television is a privilege. But Rogers has a “bottom line” approach, meaning that its interest is in knowing how much can be made. This is why you take positions that are not very beneficial to artists. Let me explain what I mean. On Local Programming Improvement Fund royalties, for example, you produced an advertising campaign whose logic just did not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. In your advertisements, you said things that—forgive me for saying this—were not even true.
Then, in regard to copyright, you want to take money away from artists in Canada and in Quebec, whose average salary is $23,500. They need that money for sure.
Think of something else. Attack the companies that produce optical fibre, not artists making $23,500 per year. You say you have to pay more here than in the United States. We understand that; we pay more for a lot of products here than in the United States. Canada is a big country, with a lot of remote areas to serve. And we only have 30 million people, whereas there are 300 million in the United States. Population density alone means that we pay more for most things.
Then you say that Rogers is in the business of telecommunications, not broadcasting. But he who controls the medium controls the message. You must surely see the proof of that in your huge world of convergence. Quebec is a world of convergence, too, with Vidéotron and Quebecor. Wireless companies that are only subject to the Telecommunications Act will be moving into broadcasting now. I do not even need to give you examples of that, you know them better than I do.
For all these reasons, when you undertake some digital initiative or make suggestions on digital development, we cannot help believing that you are more interested in your profit than in the welfare of the artists who should be the ones profiting, than in the Canadian public that wants Canadian content and than in the Quebec public that wants Quebec content.
:
Thank you very much for the invitation to be here today.
I'll open with an apology. My glasses broke in half about five minutes ago, so I will have to read fairly closely to my paper in order to actually see it.
My presentation builds on two of the points raised in your terms of reference....
No, those glasses don't help. If anyone else has glasses....
Voices: Oh, oh!
Dr. Steven High: I had those glasses for ten years anyways.
I want to address two of the points raised in your terms of reference--namely, skills development and access. More specifically, I want to provide you with my perspective on how the digital revolution is transforming how we understand, represent, and interpret the past.
New media allows us to explore places in new ways. Digital technologies are even reshaping, I think, the ways in which people remember and share their own life stories. A sense of place or collective identity, be it Canadian, regional, or what have you, would be impossible without memory.
I base my comments on how the digital revolution is changing oral history practice at the Centre for Oral History and Digital Storytelling at Concordia University, a state-of-the-art research centre that is second to none in the world. The oral history centre has been the source of a great deal of digital innovation since its creation in 2006, including the development of new software tools, such as “Stories Matter”, an open-source database software that is the first viable alternative to the transcription of oral history interviews.
I also want to share with you our experience with new media in a project called “Histoires de Vie Montréal”, or “Montreal Life Stories”, a five-year research project funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
The community-university research alliance program is a special one in that communities are supposed to become partners in research and not just objects of study. Community participation in the research process must therefore be real and sustained.
Our project is recording the life stories of 500 Montréalais who fled war, genocide, or other human rights violations mainly in Rwanda, Cambodia, Haiti, Hitler's Europe, and, sadly, elsewhere. As you can imagine, these are very difficult stories to tell, and they are very hard stories to hear.
From our vantage point in Canada, it is easy to assume that Rwanda in 1994 has nothing to do with us. It was another time, another place. Yet there are thousands of survivors living here today. Their stories have become part of our collective story now.
Oral history has the power to close distance, I think, to make history personal, and, in making it personal, to make people care. It also has the power to complicate taken-for-granted notions such as “us” or “them”, “here” or “there”. It is for this reason, perhaps, that Quebec's Bouchard-Taylor commission into reasonable accommodation recommended life stories as a way to bridge some of the social divides that exist not only in Quebec but elsewhere in Canada.
At this point, you may be asking yourselves the “So what?” question. What does any of this have to do with your deliberations on emerging and digital media?
In response, I would say that we have an incredible opportunity to deploy new digital technologies and new media practices to reconnect Canadians with their past. Oral and public history, or histoire appliquée, as it's known in Quebec, emerged in the 1970s in response to growing public interest in heritage and memory. It represents a shift not only in the intended audience but also in the research process itself. We often work in partnership with communities. We communicate our findings in a variety of ways, both textual and non-textual.
Today there are tens of thousands of oral history interviews sitting in boxes on archival shelves across Canada. Thousands more are being added by large projects that are recording the life stories of World War II veterans, Holocaust survivors, immigrant communities, and, of course, aboriginal residential school survivors. The truth and reconciliation commission is thinking of doing 60,000 impact statements.
With the death of Canada's last World War I veteran, it has become impossible for younger Canadians to hear first-hand Canadian stories of courage and sacrifice from that war. Very soon, we will no longer be able to hear first-hand stories about the Great Depression or World War II, either.
For decades, Canadian veterans have been going into schools, around Remembrance Day especially, telling their stories to young people. Survivors have likewise been at the core of Holocaust education in Canada for at least 30 years. Week after week they have gone into classrooms, telling their horrific stories to young people, to educate them, to make the world a better place.
Oral history is very good at making this kind of emotional connection. History is about far more than dates and statistics. It's about real people. Ordinary people live extraordinary lives.
But what happens when the last veteran or survivor is no longer able to do this important work? Who will keep these connections alive? Recorded interviews provide part of the answer, yet collection is not enough. Again, there are tens of thousands of recorded interviews sitting in archival drawers, computer hard-drives, or on library book shelves that have never been listened to. Their emotional power has been largely untapped. Worse still, most of these stories were recorded using now obsolete technologies.
A first step would be to digitize existing interviews to make certain that future generations will be able to listen to those who experienced Canada's twentieth century first-hand. This is a huge job, but one that needs to be done soon or the history will be lost forever. A few of these interviews have been transcribed, but these do a poor job as well in communicating, again, the emotional impact of these stories. This is where emergent and digital technologies are opening up new opportunities to access Canadian memories and to transmit them to young people in schools and outside of them.
To explain what I mean about the potential of oral history and new media, I would like to turn once again to the Montreal Life Stories project. We are spending a great deal of time working with the interview recordings of survivors of mass violence. Survivor testimony is being incorporated into radio programming, documentary film, theatre performances, art installations, exhibitions, and online platforms. We are mapping the Quebec secondary school curriculum and developing teaching modules to get these stories into classrooms. We believe that oral history can be a catalyst for public dialogue.
Not surprisingly, new media has been central to the work that we do. I would like to give you three examples. To access thousands of hours of audio or video recordings directly and easily, we have developed Stories Matter software. This open-source software, paid for by the Canadian taxpayer, enables interviews to be searched, sorted, browsed, accessed and the meanings mapped in large collections or in single interviews. We can now follow threads across interviews, making connections. The next phase in our Stories Matter development will enable researchers and larger publics to map these stories across space using a Google Map-type technology.
Our second strategy is digital storytelling. Digital storytelling has recently been described as the emerging “signature pedagogy” for the humanities and social sciences. A digital story is a three- to five-minute multi-media presentation online, using a combination of audio, video, and still images. These are often highly emotive stories.
From the outset, the Montreal Life Stories project has enjoyed a formal relationship with the National Film Board's online participatory websites called “CitizenShift” and “Parole citoyenne”. Here, the process of creating the digital story is critically important.
There's a lot of talk today, and I listened to a couple of the podcasts, about content. I think process is really crucial, in terms of whose content this is. We could simply take stories out of the interviews unilaterally, for example, and produce digital stories that speak to us. But I think it is far more interesting to work with interviewees in the selection of the clips themselves. After the interview--we have interviewed survivors for five, ten, fifteen, twenty hours of recorded interview--we ask them, “What story would you like to tell the world? You have five or ten minutes. What are you going to say?” This question forms the starting point of the digital story-making process.
I'd like to encourage you again to consider how this content is generated. I always come back to these questions: from whom, by whom, for whom? The question of who is driving the process is vitally important. Is the public's role that of a consumer only, or can we envision a more substantial role where communities are more integrally involved in future directions in emergent and digital media?
Having targeted programs for digital projects that include community participation is something I strongly believe in. Projects that build community capacity to undertake digital projects--in disadvantaged areas, for example--would go a long way in pushing forward digital literacy skills. In the paper today there was an article about a study on the digital divide.
Our third strategy relates to “memoryscapes” and audio tours. Once confined to museums, audio tours have left the building and taken to the streets with the emergence of MP3 players, iPods, and smart phones. These mobile technologies have opened up new opportunities for researchers and communities to tell stories. Places are not simply points on a map, but exist in time as well.
A project that exemplifies the enormous potential of mobile technologies and new media is the Centre d'histoire de Montréal, the city museum of Montreal. They are planning a 2011 exhibition called “Quartiers disparus”, which will examine four working-class districts demolished in the 1960s to make way for Montreal's Ville Marie and Bonaventure expressways, as well as the Radio-Canada complex and the Habitations Jeanne-Mance housing project. Using its innovative “memory clinic” methodology, the Centre d'histoire de Montréal has organized group interviews with former residents, using old insurance maps and expropriation photos to prompt memories. This will be followed by walking interviews, where people walk through the present day, what's there now, alongside the expressway or what have you, again to generate stories.
In addition to the exhibition itself, a series of self-guided audio tours are planned. We are using Mscape software and GPS technology to immerse visitors in these former neighbourhoods. So you can imagine, you're walking through a space and audio files are being triggered by where you are walking and time-coded files are also triggered. Again, this tension between past and present is politically quite interesting.
One could imagine connecting interview recordings like this with war memorials, for example, where a class would visit a war memorial wearing Walkmans and hear stories of World War I or World War II veterans--the power, again, to remember.
In conclusion, I would encourage you to break down the universalized public and think about the role communities might play in the development of emergent and digital media. Humanities and social science researchers once had a monopoly over the research process. Communities were treated as little more than new data. A growing emphasis on community-university partnerships, however, has widened the circle considerably, enriching the conversation, and producing what I think is more innovative and humanistic scholarship. New media has contributed enormously to this shift, as it encourages collaboration and citizen engagement.
I want to leave you with a story of the 16th commemoration of the Rwandan genocide. Every April, Montreal's Rwandan community holds its annual walk to the St. Lawrence River when the children in the community throw flowers into the river. There are reasons for that in terms of Rwandan culture and the importance of rivers. They also organize a day of reflection. For nine hours, nearly 100 Rwandan Montrealers watch digital stories produced from, by, and for their own community. After each segment, there is a panel of elders or youth, depending, and then everyone in the audience writes down a memory and pins it onto a timeline. You can imagine a wall with a timeline with dozens and dozens of people's stories pinned onto the wall.
So here's an example of how new media becomes a catalyst for community dialogue, confronting major issues such as the role of the church in the genocide, for example, and the breaking of silence within communities. Cultural industries are far removed from these kinds of grassroots memory projects, so I think it is important that you also consider what is going on at a more local or community level.
The digital revolution enables us to rethink past practice, I think, in important ways. But again, issues of power—from whom, by whom, for whom—are fundamental to any discussion of emergent and digital media.
Thank you.
I would also like to thank you for giving us the privilege of offering our point of view on emerging and digital media, opportunities and challenges.
First of all, the Alliance numérique is the business network for companies developing interactive digital content in Quebec. We have four sections, four alliances, as we call them. They are video games, Internet application services, mobility and e-learning. So we represent a lot of people in all sectors of activity in the digital world. We are perhaps best known for video games because of the fact that Montreal is Canada's video game capital. Of the 14,000 jobs in the area in Canada, Montreal alone has 7,000. This makes us the undisputed centre of the video game industry in Canada. We have also hosted the Montreal International Game Summit for six years. Recently, the Summit has averaged 1,500 people, 40% of whom come from around the world to our two days of meetings.
We are of course involved in commercialization, so we invite companies to join us in various trade missions to places like the United States, Europe and Japan. We literally go to the ends of the earth to help our companies grow.
I will move directly to our recommendations on the three areas that appear to us to be most critical: training, financing and commercialization. You understand that, in the world of digital convergence, borders no longer exist; the market is highly competitive and very global. We always need highly qualified human resources; in recent years, we have seen that they too are highly mobile.
So we feel that three critical elements must be considered in Canada's digital policy: we must ensure the excellence of our workforce; we must secure financing so that original content can be created and so that the excellence of companies already established in Canada can be supported; we must also try to push our leaders to go even further.
Specifically on the workforce, we must, of course, support provincial authorities and invest in programs that are already in place. We must above all make sure that training programs match industry needs. I confess that we are a little behind in this area, which, to a degree, is normal. Let me give you an example: ten years ago, we did not use Flash, it did not even exist. Today, we have Flash in digital content, so education programs have to be able to accommodate it. Often, in education, a lot of time is needed for a program to see the light of day. So we must try to become more involved in the technological issues so that we can respond more quickly.
As well, institutions of higher learning must clearly be provided with cutting edge infrastructures, again so that people in the industry can be better trained.
I would like to talk to you about one obstacle. When we want to bring foreign experts into our Canadian companies, the process must be speeded up. This has been a little difficult in recent years; in some cases, it can lead to projects being abandoned because getting people here takes too long.
We also invite you to consider establishing specific funding for the creation of original content. This fund would be mostly used to support the development of concepts and original productions. This is very important for Canadian companies. We are also suggesting that an investment fund be established for projects of that kind.
We have already indicated that we must continue to support the excellence of our companies. We must also encourage them to diversify and to expand abroad. In recent years, some aspects of commercialization have been removed and problems have resulted. It prevents us from appearing on the international stage more frequently. As we have told you, in our area of activity, the whole world is our market, so we really do have to look internationally. It is important for us to bring all participants together, either nationally, provincially or by establishing “clusters”, centres that already exist in Canada. Everyone's contribution is needed if we really want the industry to make best use of a new digital environment.
Thank you.
Just to give you an overview, I'm asking for a couple of days of hearings into the proposed takeover of Lions Gate film by U.S. shareholder investor Carl Icahn. I do believe this falls within the mandate of our committee, because Lions Gate is a key sector player.
At the outset, I want to say that this is not about squashing any takeover bids or whatever; it's an issue of ensuring that due diligence is done given the importance of Lions Gate in the Canadian film and television sector.
I'll give you the two players and why I think we need to move on it.
Lions Gate is the leading Canadian film company. It's an international success. They have a huge presence in production and distribution in English Canada, Quebec, and the United States. They've spent over $800 million on productions in Canada. In 2007, Lions Gate entered into a significant partnership with the Société générale de financement du Québec to bring more film and production to Quebec, with an investment of up to $400 million U.S.
They have distribution wings through Maple Pictures. They distribute the second-largest film library in Canada, the second-largest Cancon library, and the largest French language Cancon library. They distribute numerous Canadian productions.
The company is also a big player in the various industry organizations, such as CAFDE, Women in Film and Television, the Canadian Film Centre, and the National Screen Institute.
Any serious shakeup at Lions Gate would have massive repercussions across the film and television sector.
Carl Icahn has undertaken a hostile takeover. His net worth is $10.5 billion. It depends on who you speak to in the industry, but Icahn has a reputation at times of trying to buy companies, cut out pieces, and sell them off. He's saying he might not do that with Lions Gate, but we're not sure.
If you look up Gordon Gekko, the character from Wall Street, on the Wikipedia entry, it says that Gekko is loosely based on two characters. One was Ivan Boesky, who was very notorious and who was a criminal. Carl Icahn is not a criminal, but he was the other character because of his reputation for moving in on companies, maximizing shareholder value, and pulling out.
Regardless of whether Mr. Icahn is in charge, or the present Lions Gate board, this could have serious impacts for the Canadian film and television sector.
Under the rules it's up to the Minister of Canadian Heritage to ensure there's a net benefit to Canada. In March 2010, Mr. Icahn said he would be negotiating with the Minister of Heritage on a takeover of this operation. At the same time, Lions Gate is in negotiations to possibly leave Canada for good. They're concerned that our court provisions don't protect them with the poison pill they need to stop this hostile takeover. Either way we are facing a potential serious shakeup of the industry.
What I would like to propose is two or three days of hearings. I think we need to hear both sides so it's on the record, it's in the public realm. I'd like hear from the heritage minister and his officials in terms of how they would proceed with this, ensuring due diligence. They may be other industry players who would want to speak to this, but at this point I'm feeling we need to hear from the minister, from Mr. Icahn, and from the Lions Gate board.