:
As I said, in the experimental stream, Canadian companies can apply to this fund. In fact, we are financing three or four types of different projects. We are financing interactive content, such as websites and interactive web series. We are financing games; a large part of this is comprised of games. We also are financing mobile applications and software. We are financing four types of products.
Producers can come to us at different stages. They can come to us at the development stage or in production, when they are ready to design their project and to be market ready, and they also can come to us for promotion and marketing. We usually spend 70% of our money on production, 20% on development, and 10% on marketing.
We receive applications for many more projects than we can support. I think we are financing 30% of the projects for which we receive applications. It's a very popular fund.
We finance approximately 40 or 50 productions per year. We select them on the basis of four different criteria. We look at the production team and at the innovation, which is really the key for this program. We really need to see how projects are innovative and how they differentiate themselves from what has been done elsewhere in Canada but also around the world. Innovation is the main criteria in the three different types of activities. We also look at the business plan and at the distribution strategy. In production, we ask for an international jury of experts to help us choose the most innovative projects and, along with our own assessment of the other criteria, we select the projects that we will finance.
We are starting to see some success in this program. It's still a young program. We launched it in 2010, in July, I think. By the time we sign contracts with projects and they produce and go to market, it takes many months, if not years. We are starting to see results. Some are very successful. I think we named some last time, such as Big Win Soccer, or X-Agora in Montreal.
We've seen some that don't seem to work well, but at the same time, it's an experimental fund, so we don't expect that everything we finance will be successful. I think it's part of our mandate to take risks on projects that are innovative. We don't know if the innovation they are going to develop will be successful or not, or will work or not. Some projects were not as successful as expected, but still, it is an experience for the producers.
In the coming months, we will have more reports on activities and revenues in the projects we financed in the first year. In the months to come, we will have a better idea of the scope of the successes we have, but we hear and we see in the press and on the revenue side that some are getting a lot of attention for sure.
:
We take the other criteria internally, such as the business plan and the distribution strategy. For innovation, we say in the guidelines what innovation is for us. Innovation can be found in content, in technology, or in business models.
We have identified four different levels of innovation. Innovation can be an iteration, an enhancement—that's not the term we use, but it's something like that—a differentiation, or groundbreaking, something that has never been done.
If you are revolutionary, you have a better chance of being selected by the jury, because you'll rank higher in the pyramid on this criterion. That is the main one. If you have only an iteration of something that has already been done, there is a chance, because the competition is so high, that you won't be selected.
Determining these criteria at the beginning is where it's important for the CMF to consult with stakeholders. They give us ideas on how they think it should work. At the beginning, they knew more than we did, in fact. We are really benefiting from asking them how we should be evaluating these files.
For sure there is always subjectivity. That's why, when we hire a jury, for example, each project is read by at least three jury members so that we can have a good balance of opinions. We take all these opinions together. It's not only one person who decides if it's innovative or not. All projects are read by at least three people, and there's debate during the comparison we do. That's how it works.
On the convergence side, for the performance envelope program, which is the main program we run, we do not choose the project. It's in the hands of the broadcasters. They give the producers the opportunity to come to the CMF to have money from an envelope we give them at the beginning of the year.
:
In fact there are many different ways, depending on the types of projects we are financing. For example, if it's an interactive web series, we know that it probably won't go on DVD. We look at what the producer is proposing, to see if it makes sense. Will they succeed? That's another question. But we need to see if they've thought through how they will exploit their projects. Even at the beginning, even when they start doing the production, we want to know if they have an idea of how they will launch their project.
It's different from television. In television, you launch your project and it's done. There's nothing you can do. You do promotion, and broadcasters do promotions around it, but when it's launched, it's over.
On the digital media side, it's very different for many projects, not all types of projects, but many. You have to build your audience. When you launch, you are only starting to exploit your production. You have to create new content, because it's easier than it is for a television production to create new content, and to keep your website, for example, alive, to have audiences come back because you are providing them new content.
We are looking at their strategy, at whether they have thought of how to do that. If we see they are proposing new ways of doing this, they will get more points, because it will be a different way to do that. That's what we are looking for.
In terms of the criteria, we are looking at the distribution strategy—it's very transparent in our evaluation grid—and at the marketing and promotion plan. There's also the targeted audience. If we are financing things that are targeted to the industry, is it to help the producer create content? Sometimes it's targeted to the general public, and we'll look at that. Are they going to launch in Canada or also in international markets?
We also look at whether they have what we call market channel partners, people who will help them exploit their product on different platforms. Some have experience internally in exploiting their assets, but some are producers who don't know how to follow up with all of the promotions. We look at that.
[Translation]
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
It is a great pleasure to be here today to talk about our wonderful paralympic team and the Paralympic Games in London.
[English]
We had an exceptional experience two years ago in Vancouver at our home games in 2010. That really provided the foundation for us to prepare for the London 2012 Paralympic Summer Games.
Recognizing the gap between Olympic and Paralympic funding at that time, the Government of Canada affirmed $5 million in the March 4, 2010 federal budget to the Canadian Paralympic Committee for five years. The two main purposes are to invest in our Canadian Paralympic team and high performance through to the Toronto 2015 Parapan Am Games and to increase participation of Canadians with a physical disability in sport and recreation.
CPC is unique among national multi-sport organizations in that we not only manage Canada's national team, but we also create a sport system for people with a physical disability. We undertake the recruitment of athletes and encourage people with physical disabilities to participate in sport and recreation.
That was kind of a set-up for who we are. Now let me tell you about London.
Two great things happened in London that will impact Canadians and our strategy moving forward. These two things were on the field of play and off the field of play. Both are critically important to our future. The London Paralympic Games marked a new era in Paralympic competition.
In London we saw more countries competing at the Paralympics than ever before. In fact, 164 countries took part, up from 146 in Beijing four years earlier. World records were broken at an incredible rate at the London Paralympic Games. No less than 251 world records were set. To give you a comparison, by contrast the London Olympic Games set 27 world records during their two weeks of competition.
Countries around the world are investing unprecedented resources in Paralympic sport and it is showing in the medal count.
[Translation]
We are very proud of our athletes’ accomplishments.
[English]
Canadian athletes earned a total of 31 medals at the London Paralympic Games: 7 gold, 15 silver, and 9 bronze. This is a fantastic performance given the ultra-competitive climate of the Paralympic sport. To put this into context for you, in Beijing in 2008, we earned 50 medals including 19 gold.
As a result we did not achieve our very ambitious target for London, which was to place in the top eight in gold medal count. Our final ranking was 20th in the gold medal count and we ranked 13th in the overall medal count, which is exactly the same as our Olympic counterparts.
We are grateful for the Government of Canada funding and we are judicious in our use of it. London showed us, though, that medals do indeed cost money. The leading nations invest significantly more in their Paralympic programs than Canada does. Countries like China, Korea, Russia, Ukraine, Spain, Britain were ahead of us in medal counts and they invest many times what we do.
As proud Canadians, we are determined to fight back, to continue to use every dollar and resource we have to propel Canada forward. We're determined to regain our top 10 status at the summer games. The winter games in Sochi are a little more than a year away. We are targeted to finish in the top three, the same as in Vancouver, and we will get there.
The world is changing in Paralympic sport and we need to change with it. Building podium potential athletes takes years of investment. This is a long-term commitment.
What this means for Canada, especially as a G-8 nation and as a country considered to be one of the best places in the world in which to live, is that we must continue to work on building a more robust parasport Paralympic system, so that we can once again become a Paralympic leading nation. We are investing in the critical areas of athlete recruitment, development, and retention as well as supporting our coaches through further education and training.
While our business is sport, we invest in people. There are 4.4 million Canadians with a physical disability. The other 30 million Canadians are inspired by our athletes' incredible performances. We invest in communities. We invest in health, in fitness, in diversity, accessibility, and inclusion. These are all landmarks of Canadian values, I believe.
To achieve this, CPC has made a commitment to match the Government of Canada's investment with private sector funds. I am pleased to report to you that we are approximately two years into our funding and ahead of schedule to match those dollars from the private sector.
We agree that all Canadians have the right to enjoy the benefits of physical activity. We know that sport not only builds great athletes, but it also builds great people. Here is our other challenge, and this is what I think is really important and what we must pay attention to: only 3% of Canadians with a physical disability are currently active in organized sport compared to 30% of the general population. We are driven to change this at the Canadian Paralympic Committee. It is unacceptable. It is not good for the health and well-being of our nation.
To encourage more people with a disability to get involved in sport, we launched, during the London Paralympic Games, on national television in Canada, a campaign called “It's more than sport”, so that more Canadians will experience first-hand the many benefits of an active lifestyle.
For Canada to have a podium full of medallists, we also have to have a playground full of kids. We need to ensure that children with a disability know that they, too, deserve the right to play and to be physically active. We've also invested in equipment and programming grants in communities across the country. We hold parasport festivals in every province and territory, where people can come and try out different Paralympic activities. Our thriving schools program sends our Canadian Paralympic athletes to classrooms and gymnasiums to motivate students. Our athletes have personally connected with over 300,000 young Canadians in the last couple of years under this new funding.
Our Paralympian stories are being heard. They are empowering, motivating, and encouraging to all Canadians. Our athletes give back constantly and generously by speaking and appearing at schools, communities, hospitals, and service clubs, to mention a few.
In London, if the first great advance in the Paralympic movement was on the field of play with a rising tide of athletic performances, the second giant leap was off the field of play. It was a leap in public awareness, social change, and empowerment. A record 2.7 million tickets were sold for the games in London, with most events and sessions selling out. This is unprecedented internationally.
It is regarded as the family games. Why? It's affordable, it's accessible, and it's inspirational. England's channel 4 broadcast the Paralympic Games live in prime time all day and all evening, for 15 hours each day. Thanks to the games a generation has been inspired, empowered, and changed. The perception of people with a disability has changed, especially in Britain. Post-game studies show the positive impact of London 2012.
Here in Canada we had unprecedented growth in our traditional media coverage and social media activity around London.
In fact, there are over one billion Canadian media impressions of the London 2012 Canadian Paralympic team which was more than three times the amount of our Vancouver coverage. However, in stark contrast to the Olympic Games broadcast, coverage in Canada of the Paralympic Games was limited to one hour late at night, and it was hard to find. I know because I received hundreds and hundreds of letters from Canadians who were, I might say, royally annoyed by that coverage.
Canadians are telling us that they want more Paralympic games on television and they want them more readily available online. I need your support today to ensure that every Canadian has the opportunity to watch Paralympic athletes and Paralympic games in the future, on television and on their computers. From playground to podium, we are working with our sports partners to build a stronger parasport system in Canada.
We recognize that systemic change is not going to happen overnight. Developing a robust sports system takes time and will require a long commitment from all partners, such as my colleague, Anne, at Own the Podium, Sport Canada, Canadian sports centres, national sports organizations, the government, and corporate Canada. The investment from the Government of Canada has paid huge dividends. Our athletes and coaches are grateful. We are asking for renewed and increased investments post-2015, and I guarantee that CPC will continue to match any government investment with corporate partner funding.
Our London 2012 results confirmed the importance of CPC's strategic objectives of raising awareness, enhancing recruitment, a sport system alignment for people with physical disabilities, and embedding Paralympic sport within Canadian high performance. Our objective is to produce a sustainable Paralympic podium performance.
This is what is required for Canada to regain and maintain a position among the top 10 nations in the summer Paralympic medal standings. Finding and nurturing that next generation of Paralympic champions is one of our most urgent tasks. It's one that we're embracing with enthusiasm and energy, with passion and pride. In doing so, our Paralympians are inspiring all Canadians to dream of excellence, to never give up, and to be their best.
[Translation]
Together we will succeed. We are Team Canada.
[English]
We are proud to be Team Canada, and we thank you.
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
[English]
On the heels of our discussions last week, I would like to once again acknowledge how important it is to Canada's athletes with a disability to know that the Government of Canada and you, as our elected leaders, care about how they perform. On behalf of Own the Podium, I cannot thank you enough.
Henry mentioned earlier, and allow me to also acknowledge, that the Government of Canada is the single largest contributor and investor in high-performance sport in Canada. It's only with your investment that Canada's athletes with a disability can continue to perform on the world stage.
I'd like to focus on three primary areas for my remarks: Canada's performance relative to the rest of the world; a closer look at the sports that were targeted by Own the Podium and how they performed; and the key findings and lessons learned for 2016 and beyond.
How did we do? Well, Henry already touched on this, and it's not as rosy a picture as it was when we had our discussions last week around our Olympic team's performance. Our objective going into the 2012 Paralympic Games was to finish in the top eight in gold medal count. We knew going into the games, based on our analysis of our performance in 2010 and 2011, that target would be pretty difficult, if not impossible, to attain.
In the end, we won seven gold medals in total and finished 20th overall, based on the gold medal count. That was down from our 19 gold medals in Beijing and our seventh place ranking in 2008. We won a total of 31 medals and finished 13th overall, as Henry mentioned. This, too, is down from the 50 medals we won in total in 2008 with a 10th place ranking in overall medals as a nation.
The trend line for Canada's performance in the summer Paralympic Games is clearly downward. Canada was an early leader in Paralympic sport from 1988 to 2004, very much due to the strong position our government and Canada took in terms of social policy. Since then, over the past eight years, many nations have surged and the competitive landscape is significantly different. Nations like Russia, Poland, Australia, Ukraine, and China have focused heavily on Paralympic sport and their results in London were terrific, with increases in the number of gold medals won ranging between 18 and six.
Next to South Africa, Canada suffered the biggest drop in gold medals won, down 12 from 2008. Again, for us, as the technical organization, we knew going into this particular set of games that we were in a tough position, but we know very well that we need to make some significant changes going forward.
Let's take a look at how some of the sports that were targeted by Own the Podium performed in London.
In the summer Paralympic environment we traditionally rely on two big sports to garner the majority of our medals: swimming and athletics. There are 950 medals available just between those two sports alone at the summer Paralympic Games, a fact that really reinforces the importance of those two sports to Canada's overall performance at the games.
Swimming did okay. They performed reasonably well, but athletics really struggled. They were down 10 medals in total from 2008 and captured only one gold medal as compared to the 10 gold medals that they won in Beijing.
OTP's investment strategy for Paralympic sports heading into London was focused entirely on gold medals. There were 11 sports targeted to win one or more gold medals, and five of those sports delivered. We definitely have some work to do with those sports that weren't successful in delivering gold medals.
I have some important observations to share with you that tell a story over and above the actual performance metrics. There were some terrific performances.
I mentioned swimming. They led the way, capturing four of Canada's seven gold medals and 16 of the 30 medals won for our entire nation. Summer Mortimer emerged as a new Canadian hero in her first Paralympic Games and an athlete with a huge career ahead of her in Paralympic sport.
Canada's team sports, similar to how we performed in London in the Olympic Games, did extremely well in the Paralympic Games, with the men's wheelchair basketball team winning the gold medal against an extremely tough field. The wheelchair rugby team won a silver medal, and much like the women's Olympic soccer bronze medal, it truly had a gold-medal lining.
Conversely, London served as a wake-up call for several targeted sports.
We knew going into the games that several sports would struggle in delivering medal performances. The stark reality of the level of competition, which Henry so accurately described, really emerged in Paralympic sport. This sent a powerful message to every leader involved in high-performance sport for athletes with disabilities in our country.
London 2012 established a new benchmark for every nation involved in Paralympic sport. It's a serious business. It's much more serious than it ever has been. With the depth of competition, the level of competition, the number of nations winning gold medals, the number of nations competing, the quality and number of full-time coaches involved in the top programs, and the level of investment being made by other top nations, the world is taking Paralympic sport much more seriously than it has in the past.
Finally, let's look at the key findings and lessons learned. What do we need to do differently going into 2016 and beyond?
First and foremost, we need to invest in more and better full-time coaches and technical leaders in Paralympic sports. Without great coaches and technical leaders, we can't produce podium potential athletes.
Second, and Henry mentioned this, we just do not have a deep enough talent pool of athletes. Without a broader base, we are really stretched to produce podium potential athletes in our country. We need to invest in a deliberate recruitment strategy. We simply need more athletes with disabilities at all levels of our high-performance system.
We can improve the integration of Olympic and Paralympic programs where relevant. This can assist in elevating the overall level of professionalism within some Paralympic sports. We need a strategy to recruit more severely disabled athletes, particularly in our two big sports: swimming and athletics. We will be working closely with Canadian Sport Centres, Canadian Sport Institutes, and all the provinces and territories to help develop a much stronger system of excellence in our country.
Canadian communities need Paralymlpic heroes. They inspire and motivate Canadians with disabilities to embrace an anything is possible approach to everything they do. They serve as role models for aspiring to excellence, and they instill a belief that we can win. Our Paralympic champions connect with Canadian families and reinforce the importance of sport and physical activity, healthy living, and being active for life.
Thank you once again, on behalf of all Canada's athletes and coaches, for the tremendous support you have provided in our quest to help more athletes win more medals in the Paralympic Games. Knowing that you care, believe in, and support these athletes in their pursuits means so much to them.
Thank you very much.
:
I want to go back to broadcast rights, but not necessarily to focus only on the Canadian broadcasters.
The IOC is the one that sells the broadcast rights. It's my understanding that it has become so expensive that the private carriers in Canada aren't all that excited about carrying the Olympics because they lose lots of money on them.
The IOC talks a really good game about how important sport is, the youth, etc., and the president goes there and gives a great little speech at the beginning of the games, all of that.
Doesn't the IOC have somewhat of a responsibility to live up to the standard to which it holds the athletes, to make the broadcast rights affordable so that when the broadcasters are competing for them it makes sense, so they can actually afford to broadcast the games?
On the one hand, it's so important. If you're not broadcasting, you're not developing. People aren't seeing you. I shouldn't have to watch the Olympics to see the gentleman from South Africa because he ran in the Olympics. Now everybody knows who he is, and they make such a big deal. It's great. The broadcasters showed that over and over again. Yes, great, but that happens every single day at the Paralympics.
I don't know if you can answer, but I find it passing ridiculous that the IOC isn't helping to develop the Paralympics as well. I don't know if you can comment on this without getting yourself into trouble, but people are going to stop broadcasting the games because they can't afford to buy the rights to the games.
How do we shame the IOC? That's what it comes down to, shaming the IOC into making the games affordable so that broadcasters can afford to broadcast them and not worry about taking a massive hit to their bottom line. That includes the CBC. The taxpayers want value from the CBC as well.
What can we do to shame the IOC? I guess it's more us than you.