Transcription, Audience du 14 mai 2025

Les participants et l'endroit

Tenue à :

Centre de Conférence
Portage IV
140, Promenade du Portage
Gatineau (Québec)

Participants :

• Présidente : Vicky Eatrides
• Membres : Nathalie Théberge, Vice-présidente, Radiodiffusion
  Adam Scott, Vice-président, Télécommunications
  Stéphanie Paquette, Conseillère, Québec
  Nirmala Naidoo, Conseillère, Alberta et Territoires du Nord-Ouest
• Conseillers juridiques : Yael Wexler, Samuel Beaumier, Laura Leclerc
• Secrétaire de l’audience : Jade Roy
• Gérantes de l’audience : Saba Ali, Manon Auger

Table des matières

Présentations

32 Association québécoise de la production médiatique

192 Canadian Association of Broadcasters

388 L'Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l'Ontario

479 Reelworld Screen Institute

616 John Schoales

Transcription

Gatineau (Québec)
14 mai 2025
Ouverture de l'audience à 9 h 00

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L’audience débute le mercredi 14 mai 2025 à 9 h 00

1 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bonjour à tous. Bienvenue.

2 Madame la Présidente.

3 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Good morning. Bonjour, tout le monde, et bienvenue.

4 Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered in Gatineau on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the Anishinaabeg people and to pay respect to their elders. I also know that many people are joining virtually, and I would ask that we all take a moment to recognize the traditional land that we are on.

5 Let me start by saying welcome and thank you. Thank you for joining us today at the public hearing on Canadian content. Whether you’re joining in person or virtually, your participation and your insights are so important. We know how much work is involved in preparing for these hearings, and we really appreciate everyone’s engagement. As part of this consultation, we received 480 submissions, and we will hear from roughly 80 people over the next few weeks.

6 I know that we’re all eager to get started, but before we do, let me just very quickly touch on three things. First, let me set the stage with some context. Second, let me touch on what we are trying to achieve. And third, the issues that we will be focusing on during our hearing.

7 Alors, premièrement, commençons par un peu de contexte. Qu’est‑ce qui nous a menés à cette audience aujourd’hui? La Loi sur la diffusion continue en ligne propose des modifications importantes sur la radiodiffusion au Canada. La loi nous donne le mandat d’établir une approche nouvelle et plus souple sur la radiodiffusion qui tient compte de nouveaux modèles d’affaires et de nouvelles technologies.

8 Depuis l’adoption de la loi, nous avons fait beaucoup de progrès. À ce jour, on a lancé 15 consultations publiques et on continue à tenir un ensemble ambitieux d’audiences publiques pour nous aider à prendre des décisions importantes.

9 Lors d’une audience publique précédente, on s’est penché sur les contributions de base que les services en ligne devraient verser au système de radiodiffusion. En s’appuyant sur un dossier public exhaustif, le Conseil a déterminé que ces services devraient contribuer 5 pour cent de leurs revenus canadiens pour appuyer certains secteurs prioritaires comme les nouvelles, le contenu de langue française et le contenu autochtone.

10 Cette consultation et la décision sur les contributions de base étaient des premières étapes importantes.

11 Now, turning to the critical questions for the future, starting with the need to modernize the definition of Canadian content. Our goal is clear: to modernize the definition of Canadian content to reflect today’s reality, to make sure that it reflects how content is created, financed, and shared. Coming out of this hearing, we want to give Canadians confidence that their broadcasting system will produce many kinds of content, content they have told us that they want, they want to be able to find, they want to be able to enjoy. And today’s hearing is a major step toward that goal.

12 We have already built a very robust public record with submissions addressing many of the issues about definitions and how money flows in the system. For this hearing, we have asked parties to focus on a few key issues, and I will briefly walk through those now.

13 First, we will focus on establishing a definition of Canadian content for the future which will include a consideration of intellectual property rights.

14 We will also be looking at what the spending requirements should be for Canadian content and our approach to programming that Canadians value but that may not be created through the reliance on market forces alone.

15 And we will discuss the data that we need to ensure that the framework is achieving the results. This is particularly important in an environment where things are changing so quickly.

16 We know that the Canadian broadcasting system does not just need to meet the challenges of today, but also the ones that will emerge in the coming years. So with that, we are looking forward to hearing everyone’s views.

17 Notre travail comme membres du panel sera d’écouter, de mettre à l’essai certaines propositions, de poser des questions et de considérer les perspectives de tous avant de prendre des décisions dans l’intérêt public. Après cette audience, les participants pourront soumettre des répliques finales sur ce qu’ils ont entendu. Et ceci complétera le dossier public.

18 Alors, merci encore d’avoir participé à cette consultation.

19 And before turning things over to our hearing secretary, Jade Roy, I just want to take a moment to congratulate Jade, who is looking horrified right now, but this is her 75th CRTC hearing, which is pretty incredible.

‑‑‑ Applaudissements

20 THE PRESIDENT: Jade, this is an incredible milestone, and we are lucky to have you guiding us through. So thank you.

21 With that, I will turn things over to you to introduce the team and to talk about the procedure that we will follow. So, Madam Secretary, let’s get started.

22 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci beaucoup. Merci, bonjour à tous. Le comité pour cette audience est composé de Vicky Eatrides, présidente du CRTC, Nathalie Théberge, vice‑présidente radiodiffusion, Adam Scott, vice‑président télécommunications, Nirmala Naidoo, conseillère Alberta et Territoires du Nord‑Ouest, et Stéphanie Paquette, conseillère du Québec.

23 The Commission staff assisting us includes Saba Ali and Manon Auger, hearing managers, Yael Wexler, Samuel Beaumier et Laura Leclerc, legal counsels, and myself, Jade Roy, hearing secretary.

24 Before we start, I would like to go over a few housekeeping matters to ensure the proper conduct of the hearing.

25 There is a verbatim transcript of this hearing being taken by the court reporter. Please note that the transcript of each day will be posted on the Commission’s website the following business day.

26 Just a reminder that pursuant to section 41 of the Rules of Practice and Procedures, you must not submit evidence at the hearing unless it supports statements already on the public record. If you wish to introduce new evidence as an exception to this rule, you must ask permission of the Panel of the hearing before you do so.

27 The hearing is expected to last nine days. We will advise you of any schedule changes as they occur.

28 Also, when you are in the room, we would ask that you take the time to familiarize yourself with the emergency exits.

29 Please also note that if parties undertake to file information with the Commission in response to questioning by the Panel, these undertakings will be confirmed on the record throughout the transcript of the hearing.

30 For the record, Netflix Services Canada, Nicole Corrado, Paramount, and Apple Canada will not be appearing at the hearing. Also, Motion Pictures Association ‑‑ Canada will now be appearing on Friday, May 16, and Larue Entertainment will now be appearing on Friday, May 23rd. A revised agenda will be posted on the website at 11 today.

31 Maintenant, Madame la Présidente, nous allons commencer par la présentation de l’Association québécoise de la production médiatique. S’il vous plaît, vous présenter et présenter vos collègues. Merci.

Présentation

32 M^me MESSIER : Bonjour. Merci beaucoup de nous recevoir. Je suis Hélène Messier. Je suis la présidente‑directrice générale de l’Association québécoise de la production médiatique. Et je suis accompagnée ce matin d’Annie Provencher, responsable des affaires réglementaires et de la veille stratégique, et d’Anne‑Valérie Tremblay, responsable du financement et des services aux membres.

33 L’AQPM conseille, représente et accompagne plus de sept cents… de 150 entreprises ‑‑ ça commence bien ‑‑ 150 entreprises québécoises de production indépendante en cinéma, télévision et Web. Ces entreprises produisent du contenu majoritairement en langue française, mais également en langue anglaise et autochtone.

34 Alors que le nouveau gouvernement libéral s’est engagé à renforcer l’économie canadienne et que l’on sent partout une fierté à consommer des produits et des services locaux, l’AQPM encourage le CRTC à faire preuve de la même volonté d’agir puisqu’il dispose enfin des moyens d’intervenir fermement afin d’assurer la pérennité, la richesse et le rayonnement de la culture canadienne dans toute sa diversité.

35 L’AQPM s’inquiète cependant de certaines positions énoncées par les diffuseurs qui souhaitent un démantèlement des règles auxquelles ils sont actuellement soumis. Nous nous opposons également à la proposition des plateformes en ligne étrangères voulant que les productions de service qu’elles font déjà au Canada puissent se qualifier comme étant des émissions canadiennes, rejetant ainsi l’idée que la propriété intellectuelle canadienne soit une condition essentielle à cette reconnaissance.

36 Alors qu’un certain président américain prône l’adhésion du Canada à titre de 51e État, les plateformes américaines ne reconnaissent l’existence que d’un seul État en matière de culture : le leur. Un État qui imposerait à tous les pays du monde son propre modèle d’affaires.

37 Le CRTC doit donc s’assurer d’exercer pleinement son rôle de régulateur. Sinon, tous les efforts pour moderniser la Loi sur la radiodiffusion auront été vains.

38 La production indépendante québécoise contribue de façon marquée à la richesse et à la diversité de la programmation des services de radiodiffusion de même qu’au développement de nouveaux talents. Les émissions provenant des producteurs indépendants ont représenté 79 pour cent des dépenses en émissions canadiennes autres que les émissions de nouvelles et de sport effectuées en 2023 par les diffuseurs du marché de langue française.

39 Elle est cependant particulièrement sensible aux baisses de revenus des diffuseurs puisque le rapport financier représente en moyenne près de la moitié du budget des émissions de langue originale française. La fluctuation des revenus des diffuseurs combinée à la diminution du budget du Fonds des médias du Canada compromet conséquemment la survie de la production indépendante au Québec.

40 De récents résultats du profil économique annuel de l’Institut de la statistique du Québec en tracent d’ailleurs un portrait inquiétant. Cette étude souligne que la valeur de la production indépendante au Québec a diminué dans l’ensemble de 18 pour cent en 2023‑2024.

41 M^me PROVENCHER : Les obligations de dépenses sont d’une importance capitale afin de favoriser l’atteinte des objectifs de la loi, qui visent l’accès à une programmation qui reflète la réalité de la population canadienne et qui a la capacité de se démarquer partout dans le monde.

42 Le CRTC doit rendre des décisions qui généreront des investissements suffisants de la part des entreprises de radiodiffusion traditionnelles et des entreprises en ligne pour assurer la pérennité de l’industrie audiovisuelle nationale.

43 Il doit donc imposer à tous les diffuseurs et plateformes en ligne l’ensemble des obligations réglementaires actuelles visant les dépenses, notamment celles ayant trait aux émissions canadiennes, de la production indépendante à la production originale de langue française, aux émissions de première diffusion et aux émissions d’intérêt national.

44 L’AQPM s’oppose à la proposition du CRTC de transformer les obligations de dépenses en productions indépendantes en mesures incitatives comme des crédits de dépense en émissions canadiennes. Cela aurait inévitablement pour effet de réduire les montants réellement investis et, conséquemment, le nombre de productions provenant des entreprises indépendantes.

45 La production indépendante n’a pas à se vendre au rabais. Depuis, le CRTC doit continuer à protéger certains types d’émissions, comme les émissions d’intérêt national afin qu’une diversité de contenus porteurs de valeurs canadiennes puisse être réalisée.

46 Ces contenus ont la capacité de s’inscrire dans la durée, contrairement à d’autres qui sont plus éphémères. Ils exercent un attrait indéniable sur l’auditoire, particulièrement auprès des jeunes. Il faut rapidement agir si l’on veut prévenir un désengagement massif du public canadien à l’égard des émissions créées localement.

47 Il est également essentiel de maintenir pour les diffuseurs traditionnels les obligations ciblant les émissions de langue originale française et de les appliquer aux entreprises en ligne. Celles‑ci ont souvent moins d’intérêt à investir dans de telles productions, comme l’a mentionné le dirigeant de Paramount lors d’une précédente audience.

48 La hauteur de ces différentes obligations de dépenses devrait être examinée dans le cadre de la consultation à venir sur les conditions de service alors que nature et les particularités de chacun des services sont alors prises en compte.

49 M^me TREMBLAY : La loi de même que le décret donnant des instructions au CRTC exigent qu’une définition modernisée d’une émission canadienne encourage la détention canadienne de propriété intellectuelle, la PI. Cette idée avait d’ailleurs suscité un large consensus de la part des participants aux consultations préliminaires menées par le Conseil en 2024.

50 Le CRTC reconnaît que la détention entière ou partielle de la PI sur une production garantirait que des Canadiens en contrôle les aspects créatifs et sa monétisation à court, moyen et long terme. Pour les entreprises de production indépendante, la rétention de la PI va bien au‑delà de cette conception puisqu’elle est directement liée à la pérennité des entreprises.

51 Toutefois, dans la réalité, il est de plus en plus difficile pour les producteurs de tirer leur épingle du jeu et de conserver leur part des revenus d’exploitation. En effet, les forces du marché actuel sont défavorables aux entreprises de production indépendante. La position dominante des diffuseurs canadiens et étrangers leur permet d’imposer aux producteurs diverses exigences, incluant un accès aux revenus nets d’exploitation.

52 Cette dynamique n’est d’ailleurs pas unique au marché canadien. Un rapport de la Commission européenne publié en mars 2025 sur le transfert de droits de propriété et la capacité des producteurs d’exploiter leur contenu illustre le même déséquilibre. Les conclusions du rapport sont sans équivoque : la détention de la PI est essentielle à la création d’entreprises durables et l’absence de mécanismes de protection réduit le pouvoir de négociation des producteurs.

53 Conséquemment, introduire dans la définition d’un contenu canadien que la détention de sa PI demeure canadienne est primordiale pour assurer une place aux producteurs indépendants à la table de négociation. Comme cette place ne leur permet pas toujours d’obtenir une part équitable des revenus d’exploitation, un meilleur encadrement des pratiques commerciales est également nécessaire.

54 L’AQPM saisit donc l’invitation du Conseil en proposant deux modèles afin de qualifier une production comme étant canadienne et ainsi permettre aux services de diffusion canadiens et étrangers de remplir leurs obligations de dépenses. Un tableau résumant ces propositions est disponible en annexe de notre intervention.

55 Le modèle (A), de base, s’inspire de celui présenté par le Conseil dans lequel les droits de la PI sont détenus à 100 pour cent par des Canadiens. L’AQPM précise toutefois que les rôles clés devraient être occupés par des Canadiens selon la formule proposée par l’Association dans son intervention écrite.

56 De plus, lorsqu’il sera question de production indépendante, le modèle (A) devra toujours s’appliquer. La PI devra alors être détenue à 100 pour cent par l’entreprise de production indépendante et certifiée par le BCPAC. La licence initiale consentie par le service de diffusion traditionnel ou en ligne devra être limitée au territoire canadien pour une période maximale de 7?ans. Tout droit de diffusion supplémentaire ainsi que tout territoire additionnel devront faire l’objet d’une entente distincte entre les parties sujette à une durée limitée et à une contrepartie équitable.

57 Un deuxième modèle dit particulier (B) est de nature plus flexible. La PI devrait majoritairement être détenue par des Canadiens (pas moins de 51?pour cent) pour une durée minimale de 25?ans. L’occupation des postes créatifs devrait également se conformer à la proposition de l’AQPM énoncée précédemment.

58 Une variation dans le pourcentage de PI ne peut être compensée par une variation inverse du nombre de créateurs canadiens embauchés sur une production. Un pourcentage équitable d’accès aux recettes nettes d’exploitation au Canada et à l’international devrait également être établi en faveur de l’entreprise de production indépendante.

59 Les productions qui se qualifieraient sous ce modèle auraient une valeur proportionnelle à leur niveau de propriété canadienne pour les fins de comptabilisation des exigences de dépenses des services de diffusion. Par exemple, une production dont 30 pour cent de la PI appartiendraient à des étrangers serait comptabilisée à 70? pour cent de sa valeur en dépenses.

60 Pour les modèles A et B, il est essentiel que le CRTC maintienne l’exigence que les rôles clés de producteurs soient occupés par des Canadiens. Cette exigence garantit que le contrôle financier et créatif appartient à des Canadiens.

61 Quant à savoir si les entreprises de production indépendantes canadiennes bénéficient de manière significative et équitable des revenus découlant de l’exploitation des œuvres, l’AQPM réfère le CRTC à l’article 10?(1.1)?d) de la loi dans lequel il est question de la collaboration entre les entreprises de production indépendante et les exploitants d’entreprises en ligne ou d’entreprises de programmation.

62 L’AQPM estime que cette preuve de collaboration passe par un engagement à signer un code de pratique négocié avec les associations de producteurs indépendants. Ces mesures d’encadrement serviront à définir les paramètres plus complexes des relations d’affaires en tenant compte des genres de contenus et de la langue de production.

63 M^me MESSIER : L’établissement de modèles pour tenir compte de la propriété intellectuelle, du contrôle financier et créatif de même que du partage des revenus d’exploitation est un exercice fort complexe et à plusieurs variables. L’AQPM invite le CRTC à faire preuve de prudence dans ses décisions afin d’éviter des conséquences involontaires dommageables dans l’un ou l’autre des marchés ou pour certaines catégories de contenus.

64 C’est pourquoi l’AQPM suggère la création par le CRTC d’un comité aviseur composé notamment de producteurs dont les membres pourraient évaluer l’application et les répercussions de différents modèles. Le CRTC pourrait, il nous semble, tirer profit de cette expertise afin de prendre des décisions ancrées dans la réalité du milieu.

65 En cette période d’incertitude pour le secteur audiovisuel canadien, il est en effet important que les décisions du CRTC servent à protéger et à renforcer la production nationale détenue par des intérêts canadiens qui mettent à l’œuvre des milliers de créateurs, de professionnels et d’interprètes canadiens.

66 Maîtriser sa souveraineté culturelle, c’est posséder la capacité de raconter et de produire ses histoires au bénéfice des auditoires nationaux et internationaux. C’est aussi contrôler la destinée de ses contenus.

67 Merci.

68 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Alors, j’aimerais commencer en remerciant l’AQPM pour commencer, pour avoir commencé cette audience publique avec nous. On a bien écouté. On a lu vos soumissions aussi. Et je sais qu’on a plein de questions. Alors, on va commencer avec notre vice‑présidente. Merci.

69 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci, Madame la Présidente. Et merci aux trois représentantes de l’AQPM. Effectivement, moi aussi, je joins mes remerciements pour la qualité de la soumission et de la présentation. On apprécie toujours lorsqu’on a des propositions extrêmement concrètes, même lorsqu’elles arrivent un peu plus tard.

70 Donc, j’ai un intérêt particulier pour les questions de propriété intellectuelle. Et donc, je vous remercie donc pour la clarté dans votre présentation. J’ai énormément de questions, mais je veux laisser de la place à mes collègues qui en ont probablement autant que moi.

71 Je pense que, moi, ce qui m’intéresse en particulier, c’est de bien comprendre les défis particuliers de la production indépendante, mais aussi le rôle de la réglementation dans ce contexte, notamment en ce qui concerne la place que jouent les partenariats internationaux dans la pérennité, pour utiliser le concept que vous avez utilisé, de votre industrie.

72 Je remarque que, dans votre soumission, vous avez notamment indiqué qu’ajouter de la souplesse à la définition n’est pas nécessairement garante d’une exportabilité ou ne viendrait pas favoriser l’exportabilité de nos productions. J’aurais aimé ça vous entendre là‑dessus. Et j’aurais aimé vous entendre de façon plus générale sur la place qu’occupent les partenariats étrangers par rapport à la production indépendante, notamment dans le marché de langue française et quel est le rôle que le Conseil peut jouer pour justement favoriser ce type de partenariats, partant du principe qu’ils sont importants pour la pérennité de l’industrie. C’est ma première question. Merci.

73 M^me MESSIER : C’est une vaste question, Madame la Vice‑Présidente. Je vous remercie.

74 Les partenariats internationaux interviennent à plusieurs niveaux, notamment au niveau des coproductions internationales, qui sont favorisées par le biais de traités internationaux et aussi par la participation des producteurs à différents marchés. Comme là, c’est le marché de Cannes. Alors, je sais qu’il y a une délégation importante de producteurs québécois qui sont au marché de Cannes pour justement conclure des ententes avec des bailleurs de fonds à l’étranger, des diffuseurs étrangers, des distributeurs, des partenaires producteurs aussi. Donc, c’est une façon… Et je vois peut‑être plus mal la façon dont le CRTC peut intervenir à cet égard.

75 Ce qu’on dit, c’est que c’est extrêmement difficile de prévoir le succès international d’une production. Si on regarde, par exemple, sur les grandes plateformes, on a eu des succès comme La casa del papel. On a eu des succès comme Obéissance? Adolescence, la dernière qui vient de sortir, où on n’a pas nécessairement des réalisateurs ou des scénaristes connus ou des acteurs connus.

76 Donc, on pense qu’en essayant de modifier la définition en disant qu’ajouter un showrunner ou permettre à un scénariste étranger de participer, on ne croit pas que ça va avoir les impacts nécessaires. Souvent, ce qui attire un auditoire vers une production pour en faire un succès, ça va être au niveau des interprètes qui ont peut‑être une renommée qui est plus grande. Et il y a déjà une souplesse dans la définition actuelle, puisque ça permet qu’un interprète sur deux soit canadien. Ça exige qu’un interprète principal sur deux soit canadien. Bien, ça donne beaucoup de latitude pour les autres. Alors, je pense qu’il y a déjà dans le modèle actuel beaucoup de latitude pour avoir ces partenariats étrangers qu’on a déjà avec différents partenaires.

77 Je ne sais pas si, Anne‑Valérie, tu veux rajouter quelque chose.

78 M^me TREMBLAY : Vous avez demandé les particularités du marché francophone par rapport au marché anglophone en ce qui a trait à l’exportation ou à la participation étrangère. Il faut comprendre que, dans le financement d’une production francophone, la part qui est occupée par des préventes étrangères ou des distributeurs canadiens est très mince par rapport à celle qui est occupée par ces deux mêmes partenaires dans les productions de langue anglaise.

79 M^me MESSIER : C’est moins de 1 pour cent, en fait.

80 M^me TREMBLAY : Moins de 1 pour cent dans les deux cas, dans les préventes étrangères et des distributeurs. Là, je parle de télé et non pas de cinéma. Mais, pour ce qui est de la télévision, donc, la participation étrangère à l’étape de financement de la production est beaucoup plus mince.

81 Dans le marché francophone, une des façons pour nous de faire voyager nos contenus, c’est beaucoup sous le format. Donc, il y a beaucoup d’adaptation de formats québécois qui sont faits à l’étranger. Bien, même au Canada anglais, en fait, si on pense à des productions comme 19‑2, qui était la version… ou Plan B en français, donc, il y a beaucoup de formats qui voyagent. Donc, c’est une façon pour nous de faire voyager nos contenus.

82 La façon… en conservant la possibilité d’exploiter ses droits à l’international, il y a beaucoup d’entreprises qui ont développé une expertise à l’interne pour distribuer leurs propres contenus, qui ont des contacts sur les marchés, qui sont en mesure de le faire, qui connaissent les particularités de certains marchés et qui vont eux‑mêmes vendre à l’international avec beaucoup de succès de plus en plus, je dirais.

83 Donc, le producteur est extrêmement bien placé pour comprendre la finesse de son contenu, pour savoir s’il a plus de potentiel en format ou en produit fini. On vend des formats dans le genre fiction, mais également en variété avec Zénith, qui a été adaptée, notamment en Espagne et qui va continuer à voyager, souhaitons‑le. Des formats comme Révolution aussi qui ont été adaptés. Donc, voilà.

84 Donc, pour nous, c’est important de pouvoir conserver la propriété intellectuelle, le droit d’exploiter ces productions‑là de la meilleure façon possible pour la production parce qu’il n’y a pas de modèle ou one size fits all. Donc, chaque contenu et chaque genre de contenu a ses particularités. Et les producteurs, notamment ceux qui ont avec eux une filiale de distribution, sont les mieux placés pour en faire la promotion et les vendre à l’international.

85 M^me MESSIER : J’ajouterais cependant que le CRTC peut sûrement intervenir au niveau des obligations de dépenses parce que, en accordant ou en obligeant les diffuseurs à avoir des obligations de dépenses en contenu de langue originale française, évidemment, ça favorise leur présence sur un maximum d’écrans.

86 Si on peut étendre cette obligation‑là aux plateformes étrangères, notamment, c’est sûr que ça peut maximiser leur visibilité, bien que ce ne soit pas toujours les droits internationaux qui soient acquis, mais, quand même, ça… Et, là, on a quand même très peu de productions originales françaises qui se retrouvent sur les plateformes. Et, comme je le soulignais dans mon texte, il y a même certaines plateformes qui ont dit que ça ne les intéressait pas du tout.

87 Donc, c’est sûr que, pour le marché de langue française, ce sera toujours un peu plus difficile de percer l’international sur ces plateformes‑là.

88 M^me TREMBLAY : Et de penser que, même pour des productions, le fait d’être sur une plateforme garantit une diffusion à l’international, ce n’est pas nécessairement vrai. Peut‑être, dans les productions originales qui impliquent les plateformes, il y a une diffusion sur plus d’un territoire. Mais, souvent, les productions de catalogue ou les acquisitions qui sont faites avec du contenu plus récent sont achetées pour les marchés locaux et non pas pour une diffusion mondiale, comme certaines plateformes l’ont laissé entendre dans leurs interventions.

89 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci. J’avais posé une grande question, une longue question et j’ai eu droit à une longue réponse avec beaucoup de détails. Merci. J’ai encore un petit peu de difficulté à saisir le rôle que jouent les partenariats internationaux dans la pérennité de la production indépendante au Québec et surtout ce que le… premièrement, si c’est une piste qui est porteuse. Vous avez mentionné les défis et peut‑être un certain manque d’intérêt de la part des plateformes étrangères pour le contenu francophone. Est‑ce que c’est problématique? Et, le cas échéant, comment est‑ce qu’on renverse la vapeur? Est‑ce que c’est…

90 Je sais que, dans votre soumission, vous avez… de façon très claire, vous avez émis une position que les mesures strictement incitatives pour soutenir la production indépendante, ce n’était pas suffisant. Est‑ce que ça s’applique tous azimuts? Est‑ce qu’on peut imaginer un système où est‑ce qu’il y a effectivement des mesures incitatives pour pouvoir favoriser la récupération du contenu canadien indépendant par des plateformes étrangères, si, effectivement, c’est une piste qui vaut la peine d’être explorée?

91 J’essaie de saisir un peu, de faire le pont entre ce que vous nous avez expliqué…

92 M^me MESSIER : Oui.

93 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …et le cadre sur lequel on est appelés à réfléchir, le cadre réglementaire et les mesures qu’on peut mettre en place pour justement favoriser et vous aider à gérer les défis auxquels vous êtes confrontés.

94 M^me MESSIER : Je vous dirais que, dans le marché de langue française, le premier partenaire est sûrement les diffuseurs locaux. Parce que c’est eux qui s’intéressent le plus aux productions originales de langue française. Ils en font, ils en diffusent. Les Québécois les écoutent. Les Québécois les aiment.

95 Donc, on est dans un marché différent du marché de langue anglaise parce qu’on a encore une écoute soutenue des productions qui sont faites localement. Quand on regarde le palmarès des 20 émissions les plus regardées, il y en a 19… dans le marché francophone, il y en a 19 qui sont des émissions locales québécoises.

96 Je pense qu’il est important d’imposer des obligations. Quand vous allez regarder la façon dont vous allez imposer vos obligations, les émissions originales de langue française pour justement susciter la production et le financement de nouvelles productions et pas simplement de l’acquisition de catalogue, pour nous, c’est important qu’une part importante des obligations de dépenses soit faite en émissions originales pour justement ouvrir et développer ce nouveau marché pour les productions locales.

97 Mais il faut garder un certain équilibre parce que c’est sûr que les diffuseurs locaux sont aussi en compétition avec ce marché‑là. Donc, il y a quand même une difficulté, là, à garder cet équilibre dans le marché français de pouvoir ouvrir ce nouveau marché pour les productions francophones tout en nuisant le moins possible, je pense, au marché actuel, qui est fort pour le marché de langue française.

98 Alors, c’est ce que je voudrais faire. Je ne sais pas, je pense qu’Anne‑Valérie, tu voulais rajouter un petit quelque chose.

99 M^me TREMBLAY : Bien, peut‑être faire un lien avec la pérennité des entreprises. Là où le CRTC a peut‑être le potentiel ou le pouvoir d’agir, c’est dans la ‑‑ comment je pourrais dire ça? ‑‑ dans le fait de ne pas permettre des licences qui durent 30 ans pour l’international, c’est‑à‑dire qu’une entreprise est pérenne quand il y a des revenus qui rentrent de façon constante dans le temps. Donc, de pouvoir exploiter sur la durée ces contenus‑là à l’étranger sous différents formats ou en produits finis sous‑titrés ou doublés, c’est aussi dans la durée que tout ça s’inscrit.

100 Donc, si les droits mondiaux sont bloqués pour 30 ans ou si une durée va même jusqu’à 15 ans puis que, après ça, il n’y a plus rien à tirer du contenu parce qu’il a déjà été vu partout, bien, c’est quelque chose qui peut nuire à l’exportation. Mais, quand vous parlez des partenariats étrangers, pour nous, ça passe beaucoup par les coproductions internationales, qui sont régies par les traités de Téléfilm et par des incitatifs à réaliser des préventes ou à intéresser des distributeurs canadiens à investir ou faire de la mise en marché pour les compagnies.

101 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Vous me tendez une perche, là, pour ma première série de questions, là…

102 M^me TREMBLAY : O.K.

103 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …lorsqu’on parle justement de traités de copro. Mais peut‑être juste une clarification. Parce que, dans votre présentation, lorsque vous parlez des dépenses, vous semblez indiquer que les obligations de dépenses s’appliqueraient à l’ensemble des plateformes sans nécessairement préciser comme vous le faites dans votre soumission que c’est à partir d’un certain seuil de revenus que les obligations de dépenses s’appliqueraient pour les plateformes étrangères. Alors, je voulais juste vérifier qu’on avait bien compris que, dans votre présentation maintenant, c’est l’ensemble des plateformes étrangères qui, nonobstant leurs revenus, qui auraient des obligations de répondre ou vous gardez le 10 pour cent qui est… le 10 millions, pardon, le seuil de 10 millions.

104 M^me PROVENCHER : Oui, pardon, on garderait le 10 millions, comme on l’a indiqué dans notre intervention.

105 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : O.K. Parfait. Je voulais juste vérifier, merci. C’est l’équipe entre autres qui m’a demandé juste de vérifier.

106 Sur la question des partenariats, puis je vais finir avec ça parce que je sais que le temps file puis mes collègues ont des questions à poser, votre proposition sur la propriété intellectuelle, donc, une proposition à deux modèles, peut‑être des questions sur le modèle B, que vous présentez comme étant un modèle plus flexible.

107 De quelle manière est‑ce que ce modèle que vous dites plus flexible est susceptible d’être attractif pour des organisations, des plateformes étrangères qui souhaiteraient peut‑être venir investir ici dans de la production pour pouvoir par la suite récupérer le contenu pour le diffuser, ce qui viendrait répondre à ce que vous avez indiqué tantôt, c’est‑à‑dire l’importance de se démarquer dans le monde, là. Je pense que c’est quelque chose qui semble être important pour votre industrie.

108 Dans quelle mesure le modèle B, qui est quand même assez restrictif, à première lecture, est attractif? Si on pense que les modèles de coentreprise, par exemple, notamment aux États‑Unis, ce que vous dites dans votre soumission, c’est que ça n’a pas connu énormément de succès.

109 M^me TREMBLAY : Non.

110 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Pourquoi est‑ce qu’une plateforme étrangère, tout d’un coup, trouverait intéressant de s’appuyer sur le modèle B pour venir investir dans la production indépendante?

111 M^me MESSIER : On dirait que vous partez de la prémisse qu’ils n’investissent pas actuellement dans le contenu canadien alors que, si on regarde autant dans le profil du Québec que dans le profil canadien, la moitié des dépenses en audiovisuel ou la moitié du volume produit au Canada vient de la production étrangère et la production de service. Donc, ils le font déjà.

112 Nous, on part de la prémisse que, ce qu’on a à définir ici, c’est du contenu canadien. Donc, ce n’est pas du contenu américain qu’on vient faire ici. Ils en font déjà. C’est du contenu canadien. Et, pour nous, de prime abord, pour définir ce qu’est du contenu canadien, il faut que ce soit du contenu dont la propriété intellectuelle appartienne en majorité à des intérêts canadiens.

113 Dans les propositions, dans le modèle donnant‑donnant du CRTC, vous faites une espèce de corrélation en disant : vous pourriez détenir plus de propriété intellectuelle, mais avoir moins de contrôle créatif ou moins de postes créatifs qui sont canadiens. Il n’y a pas d’intérêt pour un producteur…

114 Un producteur est fier du contenu qui est produit. Il va mettre son nom. Il va accoler son nom à un contenu dont il est fier et il est fier pas seulement parce qu’il détient la propriété intellectuelle, c’est un élément, mais parce qu’il va avoir justement déterminé pour ce projet qu’il initie ou ce projet qu’on lui a proposé, il va avoir déterminé qui sont les meilleurs talents créatifs pour rendre toute sa grandeur à ce projet, pour le concrétiser de la façon dont il l’a imaginé.

115 Donc, pour que ce soit un contenu canadien, un contenu québécois, le producteur a besoin de s’entourer de la meilleure équipe possible qu’il va juger. Et c’est donc important qu’il conserve le contrôle créatif et financier sur une production qu’on qualifie de canadienne. Et c’est ça qu’on est en train de définir, c’est qu’est‑ce qui est canadien ou non.

116 Et je vous dirais que, dans le contexte actuel où monsieur Trump menace, par exemple, de rapatrier ou demande qu’on rapatrie une partie de la production de service, donc de la production étrangère faite au Canada, si les compagnies américaines, les plateformes américaines sont intéressées à diffuser du contenu canadien selon les modèles que l’on propose, avec une propriété intellectuelle canadienne qui va être à majorité canadienne, bien, à ce moment‑là, ils ne sont pas touchés par les prétentions de monsieur Trump puisqu’on ne parle plus de productions américaines, on parle de productions qui appartiennent à des intérêts canadiens.

117 Donc, je pense aussi que ça les met à l’abri et que c’est une façon de reconnaître… Et même si le producteur détient la propriété intellectuelle en majorité ou en totalité si c’est de la production indépendante, après ça, il signe des ententes avec les diffuseurs, que ce soient des plateformes ou des diffuseurs traditionnels. Ils vont leur accorder une exclusivité, par exemple, pour une diffusion canadienne ou une diffusion internationale pour une certaine durée. Après ça, les relations d’affaires s’engagent et les négociations d’affaires s’engagent.

118 Donc, ça demeure… S’il y a un intérêt financier ou une perspective pour les diffuseurs, qu’ils soient internationaux, nationaux, soit de faire de l’argent ou soit d’augmenter le revenu d’abonnement à cause de la qualité de la production, l’intérêt va être là aussi, là.

119 Donc, c’est… J’ai l’impression, quand le CRTC va jusqu’à dire : “ Bien, 100 pour cent peut‑être de la propriété intérêts étrangers », bien, un, ça se fait déjà. Et, deux, ce n’est plus de la production canadienne.

120 Dans les obligations de dépenses que vous allez faire, si on prend par exemple le modèle français, parce que je ne veux pas présumer de la décision en troisième étape, là, quand on va décider des niveaux de dépenses, mais, en France, par exemple, on a décidé que 20 pour cent des revenus des plateformes étrangères devaient être investis dans du contenu local. Le 80 pour cent qui reste, là, ils font ce qu’ils veulent. Alors, j’ai l’impression que le CRTC veut encore plus restreindre ce qui va rester avec une définition qui serait très permissive alors qu’ils ont… ils vont déjà avoir la majorité du terrain pour jouer selon les règles qu’ils veulent bien établir.

121 Alors, nous, on dit : si on essaie de protéger ce que constitue du contenu canadien, il faut reconnaître à ce moment‑là des éléments canadiens importants dans cette définition‑là.

122 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci. Juste pour vous rassurer, le CRTC n’a pas encore d’intention. On explore. Alors, on explore.

123 Je vais faire un peu de pouce sur les relations d’affaires auxquelles vous venez de faire référence dans votre présentation. Vous parlez de l’établissement d’un code de pratique. J’aurais aimé vous entendre et avoir un peu plus de précision sur ce code de pratique. Qui élirait? Comment il serait supervisé? Par qui? Son objectif. Et on pourra probablement faire suivre avec des demandes de renseignements par la suite, si on a besoin de comprendre un peu mieux les tenants et aboutissants de votre proposition. C’est mon avant‑dernière question. Puis, après ça, j’en aurai une petite dernière. C’est tout.

124 M^me MESSIER : Je vais essayer de vous donner une réponse pas trop longue.

125 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci.

126 M^me MESSIER : Les codes de pratique, pour nous, ça semble essentiel. Tu as beau être le détenteur de la propriété intellectuelle, après ça, la façon dont tu vas négocier avec les diffuseurs dépend de ton pouvoir de négociation.

127 Selon les règles actuelles, à cause, par exemple, de la hauteur des investissements des diffuseurs, le fait aussi que l’engagement d’un diffuseur est nécessaire pour déclencher l’aide financière, les crédits d’impôt, les choses comme ça, ça donne un pouvoir de vie ou de mort aux diffuseurs sur le fait que la production va se réaliser ou non.

128 Et, à cause de ça, ils ont un énorme pouvoir lorsque vient le temps de déterminer les ententes commerciales, les conditions commerciales d’exploitation. On va utiliser, par exemple, on va récupérer les droits de diffusion musicale, les droits de retransmission. On va parler de partage sur les revenus d’exploitation qui, parfois, dépassent le 50/50.

129 Donc, il est extrêmement difficile d’avoir un équilibre du rapport de force. Le code de pratique viendrait déterminer de grands principes de ce que peuvent contenir les ententes qui doivent être négociées avec les producteurs, que ce soit par les plateformes ou par les diffuseurs traditionnels.

130 On espère que ce serait endossé, géré par le CRTC. Ça existe déjà au Royaume uni, notamment, pour les diffuseurs publics. Et c’est géré par l’organisme de réglementation. Donc, on aimerait avoir… En France, ils ont des ententes contractuelles qui sont par la suite… qui sont négociées entre les parties sur le terrain, mais qui sont ensuite entérinées par l’organisme réglementaire aussi.

131 Donc, il y a différentes façons d’y arriver. Mais, pour nous, ce serait important d’aider les producteurs à avoir un rapport de force pour assurer justement que l’objectif de la loi, que les revenus d’exploitation se… J’étais pour dire “ ruissellent », mais c’est une expression que je déteste tellement. Que les revenus d’exploitation soient partagés entre les parties de façon équitable, comme c’est prévu dans la loi.

132 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Et est‑ce que ce code de pratique serait associé à un mécanisme de résolution des différends, si c’est pour amener autour d’une même table à la fois producteurs, distributeurs, pour s’assurer qu’un certain nombre de règles dans les relations d’affaires sont bien respectées? Est‑ce que c’est ce que vous avez en tête?

133 M^me MESSIER : Pas nécessairement. On sait que la Loi sur les nouvelles vous donne ce pouvoir de façon absolue et que ça n’existe pas nécessairement dans… Je pense qu’on pourrait envisager différents mécanismes, déjà une signature par des diffuseurs et un engagement par les diffuseurs à le respecter. Est‑ce qu’ils devraient soumettre les ententes commerciales pour qu’il puisse y avoir une vérification de la part du CRTC? J’avoue qu’on n’a pas été jusqu’à l’application du code comme tel. Tu voulais rajouter quelque chose?

134 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Je vous remercie beaucoup. Je vais passer la parole à la présidente. Je vous remercie beaucoup.

135 M^me MESSIER : Merci.

136 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Merci à la vice‑présidente. On va continuer avec la conseillère Paquette.

137 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Merci, Madame la Présidente. Bonjour, mesdames.

138 Je vous amène sur la question du droit d’auteur. En ce moment, la définition du CRTC pour fins de certification de dépenses en émissions canadiennes ne requiert pas comme telle, comme vous savez, la détention du droit d’auteur pour se qualifier comme une dépense en émissions canadiennes, le requis étant un autre niveau dans notre écosystème, qui est celui du financement ou celui des crédits d’impôt comme tels.

139 Ma première question serait : est‑ce que ça pose problème en ce moment? Ma deuxième question serait : dans un modèle, justement parce qu’il y a une grande polarisation sur la question en ce moment, est‑ce qu’un modèle à plusieurs niveaux comme ça dans un écosystème, où est‑ce que la détention du droit d’auteur est requise à certains niveaux, mais pas à d’autres, pourrait apporter de la flexibilité et fonctionnerait? J’aimerais savoir ce que vous en pensez.

140 M^me TREMBLAY : Bien, vous l’avez bien dit, en fait, présentement, il y a d’autres safeguards, pour utiliser un bon mot en français, qui permettent… qui assurent que la détention de la PI est retenue par les entreprises de production indépendante, notamment pour tout ce qui est lié au financement de la production.

141 Là où ça devient plus compliqué, c’est si à un moment donné les plateformes étrangères ont des obligations de dépenses et qu’ils doivent faire certifier les productions qu’ils vont comptabiliser aux fins de remplir leurs dépenses et qu’on n’a aucun critère dans ces définitions‑là qui garantissent que la propriété intellectuelle appartient à des Canadiens. Ça peut faire en sorte que de la production de service ou ce qu’ils font déjà ici au Canada va se qualifier comme étant de la production canadienne pour remplir leurs obligations de dépenses.

142 Ce qu’on veut éviter, c’est ça. On ne veut pas permettre aux entreprises étrangères de continuer à faire ce qu’elles font et de les faire qualifier comme des productions indépendantes. On veut plutôt qu’ils investissent dans l’écosystème de production canadienne au bénéfice des Canadiens. Voilà.

143 M^me MESSIER : Parce que, actuellement, ça ne pose pas de problème, parce que, essentiellement, la production, c’est quoi? C’est de la production interne, donc, qui est détenue par des diffuseurs canadiens à 100 pour cent ou c’est de la production qui est faite par des producteurs indépendants, donc, là aussi, qu’il y a une détention de propriété intellectuelle à 100 pour cent de facto sur le terrain. C’est ce qu’on vit à cause justement des obligations des crédits d’impôt, par exemple, ou des règles de financement. Donc, le système actuel ne pose pas de problème. À partir du moment où tu rentres des joueurs qui ne sont pas canadiens dans le système, bien sûr que, là, le problème se pose.

144 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Mais je comprends que vous liez le processus créatif comme tel. Par exemple, une définition du CRTC pourrait demander que le processus créatif soit canadien. Vous liez ça à la détention du droit d’auteur. Est‑ce que j’ai bien compris?

145 M^me TREMBLAY : La propriété intellectuelle garantit le contrôle financier de la production. Je pense que c’est illusoire de penser qu’une entité étrangère qui détiendrait 100 pour cent de la propriété intellectuelle puis le contrôle financier laisserait le contrôle créatif entre les mains des Canadiens.

146 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Maintenant, je vous amène sur le terrain dont vous venez de discuter, les relations entre les producteurs et les diffuseurs. En ce moment, l’écosystème fait en sorte que les producteurs et diffuseurs doivent travailler ensemble. Les producteurs ont besoin d’un diffuseur pour déclencher du financement. Les diffuseurs n’ont pas accès au financement que par l’intermédiaire d’un producteur.

147 Dans un contexte où est‑ce que les plateformes se multiplient, que les possibilités pour visionner les contenus se multiplient, est‑ce que cette structure a encore sa raison d’être? Est‑ce qu’on n’aurait pas intérêt à mettre tout le monde sur le même pied, donc, les producteurs n’auraient pas nécessairement besoin d’un diffuseur, mais les diffuseurs pourraient en quelque sorte financer ou obtenir du financement pour leur propre production? J’aimerais avoir votre point de vue sur cette question.

148 M^me MESSIER : Ce serait absolument catastrophique.

149 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Ce serait absolument…?

150 M^me MESSIER : Ce serait absolument catastrophique. Ce serait la fin de la production indépendante. C’est une revendication de longue date des diffuseurs d’avoir accès directement aux crédits d’impôt. Et, à ce moment‑là, il n’y aurait plus de raison de faire affaire avec la production indépendante, un système qu’on a mis plus de 50 ans à créer au Canada. Donc, c’est…

151 Et, de l’autre côté aussi, penser… Il y a déjà des programmes qui offrent du financement quand tu n’as pas de diffuseur. C’est des programmes qui sont quand même limités à certains types de contenus et des contenus un peu moins bien financés. C’est évident, comme on l’a dit, les diffuseurs au Québec fournissent 50 pour cent du budget de production.

152 Donc, on a besoin d’avoir des diffuseurs dans la structure financière et on a besoin aussi que les émissions soient vues. Donc, quelque part, ça prend des plateformes, des ententes. Ça va toujours prendre des ententes avec des plateformes de diffusion ou des diffuseurs.

153 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Je reviendrais sur la question de la réalité des producteurs anglophones par rapport à ceux des producteurs francophones. Vous en avez parlé sur les questions de partenariats internationaux. Et on sent effectivement que la réalité est différente. Le modèle d’affaires anglophone est beaucoup plus axé sur les partenariats justement à l’international tandis que, du côté francophone, on a encore un marché qui est fort et ça demeure la principale cible.

154 Est‑ce que c’est au point, en fait, la différence entre l’approche… c’est au point que la réglementation, l’écosystème allant même jusqu’à la définition, devrait être différente? Je sais que vous suggérez des obligations de dépenses en contenu francophone, mais est‑ce qu’il y a d’autres choses? Est‑ce que le cadre… est‑ce que ça appelle à une approche différente, outre ça, et à un cadre réglementaire différent pour le marché francophone par rapport au marché anglophone?

155 M^me MESSIER : Je pense qu’on l’a souligné au niveau notamment des émissions d’intérêt national. Il y a moins de débouchés possibles et évidents pour les émissions de langue française. Donc, maintenir un niveau élevé d’obligations en intérêt national, des obligations aussi en émissions originales de langue française puis des émissions de première diffusion pour justement susciter cette production de nouvelles émissions est quelque chose d’essentiel.

156 Une des choses qui, évidemment, nuit aux productions, au rayonnement des productions francophones à l’international, c’est le niveau de financement. À partir du moment où on a des émissions francophones qui reçoivent le tiers ou le quart des budgets des productions de langue anglaise, c’est difficile d’être attractif sur la scène internationale.

157 C’est une des raisons pour lesquelles Anne‑Valérie disait notamment que c’est probablement plus facile de vendre des formats que de vendre des émissions parce qu’il y a une limite à produire de bonnes émissions, mais à concurrencer l’ensemble des émissions produites internationalement avec les budgets qu’on a. Et les budgets de fiction sont le quart des budgets de langue anglaise. Et ça se répercute dans tous les genres. Alors, évidemment, ça a une incidence.

158 Je ne sais pas si le CRTC peut influencer les niveaux de financement de la part des gouvernements ou… Mais c’est évident que c’est une des raisons aussi qui rend l’attractivité des productions sur les marchés internationaux plus difficile, au niveau télévisuel.

159 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis peut‑être une toute dernière question. Comme vous le savez sans doute, il y a plusieurs intervenants du milieu de la musique qui demandent que 75 pour cent de la musique dans une production soit canadienne pour qu’une production puisse se qualifier comme une production canadienne. Alors, j’aimerais avoir l’opinion des producteurs sur cette question‑là. Est‑ce que ça aurait un impact sur les producteurs si un tel requis apparaissait au niveau de la définition?

160 M^me MESSIER : Ce qui nous apparaît complexe dans ça, c’est : sur quelle base ça va être comptabilisé? Est‑ce que ça va être le nombre de pièces? Est‑ce que ça va être le minutage? Est‑ce qu’on va tenir compte de l’importance du thème par rapport à une musique de fond qu’on entend à peine? Ça devient extrêmement compliqué. Il peut y avoir plusieurs pièces musicales aussi dans une œuvre.

161 Ce à quoi on s’opposait fermement, c’est qu’on se base sur le détenteur de droit parce que toute la musique internationale est représentée au Canada par des intermédiaires. Donc, le détenteur de droits de Madona ou de Beyonce va toujours trouver un sous‑éditeur canadien qui va détenir les droits. Alors, on va être très loin à ce moment‑là d’avoir de la musique canadienne.

162 Et qu’est‑ce qu’on qualifie donc de musique canadienne? Est‑ce que c’est l’auteur, le compositeur, le détenteur de droits, le producteur de la musique? Ça devient quelque chose de très complexe.

163 M^me TREMBLAY : Il y a aussi la situation de la musique préexistante versus la musique originale qui est composée pour le… qui, lui, a un point dans la grille de contenu canadien. En fait, il y a un point pour le compositeur de la musique originale canadienne aussi, là. Donc, il faut faire la distinction entre les deux.

164 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien, merci. Je n’ai plus de questions.

165 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Merci. Merci à la conseillère Paquette. Alors, je pense qu’on a juste quelques questions finales. On va continuer avec la conseillère Naidoo. Merci.

166 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you so much for being here. I’m going to ask my question in English because I don’t speak French very well, and I want to make sure you understand me, so. But please feel free to answer in any language that you prefer.

167 You mentioned that the Commission should support at‑risk programming. So I wanted to just dive down into that a bit more. Can you specify the criteria that you would suggest in order to determine which programs are at risk?

168 M^me MESSIER : Nous, on favorise la définition existante. Ce qu’on ne trouve pas clair dans la définition existante, c’est la place du long métrage, là. Pour trouver le long métrage, il faut aller voir dans une sous‑catégorie d’une sous‑catégorie d’une sous‑catégorie. Donc, nous, on aimerait que le long métrage soit inclus de façon plus visible dans cette définition‑là.

169 Et on ne voudrait pas que les nouvelles soient incluses dans une définition d’émission d’intérêt national. On trouve que les émissions d’intérêt national sont des émissions qui devraient être plus pérennes. En France, on les appelle des émissions patrimoniales, des émissions qui sont moins éphémères.

170 Quand on regarde le niveau de dépenses en émissions canadiennes, le sport et l’information représentent à peu près 50 pour cent du niveau de dépenses. Alors, on se dit : si on intègre les nouvelles dans les EIN, ça va manger… absolument, ça va occuper toute la catégorie, au détriment d’émissions qui sont importantes, que ce soient des émissions jeunesse, des émissions de fiction, des documentaires, des émissions de variétés qui sont des émissions qui coûtent cher à produire et qui ont besoin de cette aide‑là.

171 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: You talk about news should not be considered to be national interest, that you think it should be ‑‑ you had mentioned that it’s considered to be a heritage program. Could you just let me know, just maybe flesh out a little bit more why you feel that it shouldn’t be considered to be national interest?

172 M^me MESSIER : Ce n’est pas que les nouvelles ne sont pas un type d’émissions important. Ce qu’on dit, c’est qu’elles sont déjà très financées. On a déjà un niveau… Je sais qu’on entend beaucoup de choses sur les nouvelles régionales, par exemple, des choses comme ça. Mais, quand on regarde le niveau de dépenses, le niveau de dépenses des émissions de nouvelles et quand même resté relativement stable au fil des ans. Ils ont déjà accès à d’autres programmes de financement pour les soutenir.

173 On parle d’une autre catégorie. Les nouvelles sont fabriquées à l’interne par des diffuseurs, avec des employés permanents. On est tout à fait dans un autre écosystème, un écosystème qui est quand même moins fragile à cause de la structure qui les entoure que des émissions qui dépendent de mesures de financement, de bon vouloir de producteurs, qui sont basées… qui sont faites par des travailleurs qui n’ont pas un statut permanent, qui sont des travailleurs pigistes. Un système beaucoup plus fragile, comme on l’a constaté notamment avec les déclarations de monsieur Trump.

174 Donc, on pense que c’est vraiment deux univers séparés. Et on parle d’intégrer les plateformes. Et c’est peut‑être le seul point sur lequel je suis d’accord avec les plateformes étrangères. Ce n’est pas un type de contenu qu’on retrouve énormément sur les plateformes étrangères. Et je pense qu’on doit les mettre dans une catégorie à part et traiter les nouvelles de façon particulière.

175 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. That’s all the questions that I have.

176 M^me MESSIER : Merci beaucoup, madame Naidoo.

177 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Alors, je pense qu’on a juste une question finale avec le vice‑président. Merci.

178 VICE‑PRÉSIDENT SCOTT : Merci. C’est vraiment un suivi de la question de ma collègue. Pour des programmes à risque, est‑ce que ce sont ceux qui sont le plus difficile à financer qui devraient être prioritaires? Ou existe‑t‑il un test d’intérêt public? Comment est‑ce qu’on choisit nos priorités?

179 M^me MESSIER : Je ne pense pas que ce soit un test d’intérêt public dans ce sens‑là. Je pense qu’on doit privilégier des émissions qui ne sont pas à consommation rapide, qui forment un patrimoine d’œuvres qui vont durer dans le temps. Et c’est ça qu’on essaie de favoriser. Comme je dis, les Français les définissent plus comme des œuvres patrimoniales, qui ajoutent au patrimoine d’une société, qui constituent son patrimoine.

180 Les nouvelles sont importantes, mais sont un type de contenu à consommation rapide. Comme du fast food, mais je ne veux pas le dénigrer, mais, dans le contenu, ce n’est pas un contenu qui offre cette durée, cette pérennité qui peut être exploitée dans des catalogues, qui offre des perspectives à long terme. Et je pense que c’est ça qu’on doit favoriser dans les émissions à risque, c’est vraiment celles‑là, c’est des émissions qui offrent… qui ont un caractère patrimonial.

181 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Alors, moi, j’aimerais remercier les représentants de l’AQPM. On aimerait vous laisser le dernier mot. Merci.

182 M^me MESSIER : Je pense que, le dernier mot, je vais revenir à la proposition qu’on vous fait. C’est extrêmement difficile de définir des modèles. Et ça nous inquiète très honnêtement que commenciez à jongler sur la propriété intellectuelle, le niveau de contrôle financier créatif, le partage des revenus.

183 C’est pour ça qu’on vous suggérerait peut‑être la mise sur pied… et on doit à ce moment‑là avoir un modèle qui convienne à des diffuseurs traditionnels, qui convienne à des diffuseurs en ligne canadiens, qui convient à des diffuseurs en ligne étrangers, qui convient aux émissions jeunesse, aux documentaires, aux émissions de fiction, au marché de langue française, au marché de langues autochtones, au marché de langue anglaise. Ça va être extrêmement complexe de jouer là‑dedans.

184 C’est pour ça qu’on vous propose de mettre à votre service des producteurs, des volontaires qui diraient : ça, ça peut fonctionner; ça, ça peut ne pas fonctionner; ça, ça va avoir telle conséquence. Parce que je pense que c’est difficile. On a essayé… on a été en concertation avec notamment la CMPA et d’autres pour jongler avec ces idées‑là. On en a beaucoup parlé avec nos membres aussi. Et la réalité est tellement différente sur le terrain de… Il y a tellement de modèles possibles. Il y a tellement de types d’ententes que ça devient très difficile.

185 Alors, c’est pour ça qu’on se disait : une des solutions peut passer par, justement, pour vous, de tester certaines de vos propositions ou l’application ou les répercussions de ça. Puis ou ça peut être de dire : bien, on va plutôt dessiner un encadrement, de grands principes qu’ils devraient régir, ces modèles‑là. Et peut‑être que ce serait une voie plus facile et qui laisserait beaucoup plus de souplesse à ce moment‑là de négocier des modèles qui sont adaptés à leur réalité. Alors, c’est pour ça.

186 Je vous remercie. Je ne voudrais pas être à votre place parce que vous allez vraiment tracer la voie pour les années à venir et vous allez avoir beaucoup de répercussions sur tout le milieu, qui vit une période difficile actuellement. Et, ça, bien, on vous est très reconnaissants pour le travail que vous allez faire. Merci.

187 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Alors, pas de pression.

188 M^me MESSIER : Pas de pression, non, pas du tout.

189 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci.

190 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci beaucoup. Nous allons prendre une pause de 10 minutes. Et de retour à 10 h 15.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 03

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 16

191 THE SECRETARY: Welcome. We will now hear the presentation from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. Please introduce yourselves and you may begin.

Présentation

192 MR. DESJARDINS: Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, Commissioners, CRTC staff, and our many gathered colleagues here and CAB members across the country. My name is Kevin Desjardins, and I am the president of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and with me today is Tandy Yull, our vice‑president of Policy and Regulatory Affairs.

193 It is my pleasure to be here before you again to represent our membership on this important work of implementing the Online Streaming Act. The CAB represents the vast majority of Canadian privately‑owned and controlled radio, television, and discretionary broadcasters, both independent and affiliated, and including services of exceptional importance.

194 Over the coming weeks, you will have the opportunity to hear from many of the CAB’s members and other stakeholders. Each of the CAB’s members is unique, with a variety of business models and approaches to programming. We appreciate the Commission’s attention to their specific points of view and encourage you to recognize the nuance of their distinctive positions on the questions you put forward in this process.

195 In modernizing of the definition of Canadian content for all participants in the Canadian media marketplace, the CAB has outlined four key principles that we believe are essential in achieving the goals outlined by the Commission in its notice at the outset of this consultation.

196 The first principle is sustainability. We believe that the viability and sustainability of Canadian‑owned and ‑controlled broadcasters must be prioritized. Canadian broadcasters will only be able to continue to make meaningful contributions to the public policy goals outlined in the Broadcasting Act if they are able to operate viable businesses that are capable of adapting to the profound structural challenges facing their operations and being responsive to the interests of their audiences.

197 The second principle is equity. The modernized framework that is being developed through these consultations must ensure that all players in the system are treated equitably. Canadian broadcasters cannot continue to bear the full weight of supporting cultural policy objectives while they continue to compete with foreign undertakings for programming rights, viewers, subscribers, and advertisers. A recalibration of the obligations placed on Canadian broadcasters and foreign streamers is absolutely necessary.

198 The third principle is flexibility. As I just mentioned, CAB’s members have distinctive business models and programming strategies, and the contributions they make to the broadcasting system as a whole must align with those unique approaches. This is why the CAB strongly supports the Commission’s stated approach to tailored conditions of service. We believe that recognizing the differences between players and focusing on incentives rather than quotas is the best way to achieve the goals of this process.

199 And the fourth principle is simplicity. We believe that going forward, it will be important for the Commission to only regulate what truly matters. This means letting go of legacy requirements and taking every opportunity to reduce both the regulatory and administrative burden on regulated broadcasters and allowing the Commission to focus its resources on improving its efficiency in certain areas.

200 Ultimately, what each of those four principles speaks to is an essential need for fairness in the regulatory regime. The Commission must recognize the highly competitive business environment for Canadian broadcasters, fueled by the presence of global streaming services who derive significant economic benefits from the Canadian market. These foreign players must be brought into the regulatory fold, and they must make meaningful contributions to the goals set out in the Act and in the Policy Direction. At the same time, the obligations of Canadian broadcasters need to be recalibrated to the current market realities.

201 Maintaining the ongoing viability of Canadian‑owned broadcasters is, in and of itself, an important public policy objective. Indeed, significant declines suffered by Canadian broadcasters over the past decade are directly attributable to the presence of those foreign and still unregulated platforms. As econometric information shared with the Commission in our appendices outlines, foreign players have taken a significant market share of our audiences, advertising, and subscribers. Any opportunities for growth in any of these areas by Canadian broadcasters and media have been undermined by the massive influx of these global players.

202 After decades of steady growth, total revenues and profitability for Canadian broadcasters have been in precipitous decline. We have reached a point where even the aspects of the sector that have until recently done well, such as discretionary television, are themselves deeply challenged, and cannot prop up the steep losses in other areas, such as conventional television.

203 These challenges are not part of any cyclical change but are structural in nature. Foreign online streamers are here; they entered the market on their own terms. They funnel billions of Canadian dollars out of our system and out of our economy, and only invest a in ways that ultimately benefit their own global goals and their own bottom line. And as should be clear from recent statements on the world stage, none of the previous investments in foreign productions by these foreign media giants can be assumed as their plans going forward.

204 All the while, and unfortunately, for the foreseeable future, Canadian broadcasters continue to be held to obligations instituted well before those foreign players arrived and disrupted our domestic marketplace. This disruption has placed immense strain on our Canadian‑owned and ‑controlled system and our members’ abilities to sustain more than their share of the responsibility for the public policy goals set out in the Broadcasting Act. And yet, they have remained an important and growing contributor to Canadian programming expenditures, representing over $3 billion in spending, despite the aforementioned challenges.

205 This is why it is so essential that the sustainability of the Canadian‑owned and ‑controlled broadcasting system be identified as a priority key objective of the modernized framework. We simply cannot assume that the foreign entrants in the Canadian market will replace the role that our domestic broadcasters play, especially in areas such as the production of news.

206 Canadian broadcasters can only continue to make meaningful ongoing contributions to the many cultural and public policy goals set out in in the Act and listed in the Policy Direction and identified by the Commission in its notice of consultation, under the following conditions: they must be able to operate viable businesses that are capable of responding to the profound structural challenges; they need flexibility to be able to adjust and adapt to audience and market changes; they must be subject to a lighter regulatory touch than has existed up until now to permit them to contribute to the outcomes sought by the Commission in a way that is most appropriate given their particular circumstances. Therefore, the Commission must recalibrate the contribution framework to ensure that foreign streamers make meaningful and equitable contributions and that the regulatory and administrative burden on Canadian broadcasters is reduced.

207 To be clear, “equitable” does not mean the same. As you proceed, the Commission must be cognizant of the very real differences between licensed or exempt broadcasters and online undertakings that operate without a licence or exemptions, including foreign broadcast undertakings that require no approval for launch. This means not perpetuating the legacy approaches, where licensing “beauty contest” processes have provided opportunity to ratchet up significant commitments and impose highly detailed and often onerous obligations on licensees.

208 It also means not perpetuating a system where licensed broadcasters are regulated more strenuously and precisely, while foreign players are given abundant flexibility. The fact that foreign undertakings already have the structural advantage of not requiring approval to launch in Canada means that the Commission needs to ensure that any obligations on licensed broadcasters do not exacerbate the ability of Canadian media companies to compete.

209 Going forward, foreign undertakings will need to demonstrate that they will make meaningful contributions to the Canadian broadcasting system in accordance with the objectives of the Act. We believe that this should be done by having foreign undertakings make contributions to Canadian funds, to ensure that the system is the primary beneficiary of these commitments, and not themselves.

210 More importantly, contributions made through direct expenditures will only further exacerbate the deep challenges in the programming rights market in Canada. Allowing foreign players too much latitude for their direct expenditures to count as a contribution will serve to escalate the cost of Canadian production to unsupportable levels.

211 Overall, we need a model that prioritizes tailored contributions of service that best reflect the diversity of ownership models and to ensure the future sustainability of Canadian‑owned broadcasters.

212 We also need an administrative process that ensures a thorough and meaningful scrutiny is applied to legacy approaches to data collection and reporting requirements. These requirements must be reduced to those that are strictly necessary for the supervision of the broadcasting system. And again, these requirements need to be applied equitably.

213 And finally, when it comes to IP ownership, the CAB believes that this must rest with Canadian creators ‑‑ including broadcasters and producers ‑‑ to ensure that they are able to benefit from their creative work, fully exploit their rights, and, in turn, reinvest in Canadian content development.

214 The CAB believes that the Commission’s approach should be harmonized with that of the Canadian Audio‑Visual Certification Office (CAVCO), the primary tool for the funding of Canadian content via federal tax credits.

215 This concludes our remarks this morning. Thank you for your attention. We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer any questions you may have.

216 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to the CAB for your written submissions and also for sharing your perspectives with us this morning at the public hearing. We will start our questioning with Commissioner Naidoo. Thank you.

217 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi. Thank you for being here today.

218 I wanted to start off with something that you ended your presentation on today. In your intervention, you said that you believe that any IP model adopted should harmonize with CAVCO’s. And for anyone who’s not familiar with what that means, it does not favour shared IP. But the flip side to that, of course ‑‑ I’m sure you’ve heard of this from the industry ‑‑ is that co‑production models permit Canadian producers to rely on different sources of funding, gain access to different markets, facilitate different types of discoverability of programming. So why would shared IP in your view not accomplish the public policy goals mentioned, and why, for instance, should ownership of a program not align with the financial input into and financial risk taken in that program?

219 MR. DESJARDINS: Well, I think that we acknowledge that there are a number of ways for financing to be done. And certainly, recognizing that there’s value to those different models, I think the concern would just be that a model that allows for a lower commitment to Canadian ownership would very much favour a model in which the foreign players are effectively using Canada as a bit of a back lot. Certainly, in that sort of context, I think you would see that creative decisions and those things that drive the decision‑making around how that programming is made and to whom it’s served and what the content of it is would be driven more by the foreign entity than by the Canadian entity.

220 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you for that.

221 I want to move on to CPE and PNI. How would your approach to CPE incentivize the creation of Canadian content in the digital space as well as facilitating the discoverability of that content?

222 MR. DESJARDINS: So, I think that our approach, which is to encourage funding to flow through funds, is a manner of ensuring that ‑‑ you know, as the foreign players are accessing Canadian content for their platforms, I think that that model of putting things through the fund helped to ensure that it is a truly Canadian engagement. And it’s something that’s a bit more equitable and fair with the way that Canadian broadcasters engage with this at this point. So we wouldn’t I think see that as a hindrance to the acquisition of programming from Canadian producers, and it would likely be a ‑‑ you know, as opposed to a model in which, again, using Canada as effectively a back lot for investments in their own programming with their own global goals we think would detract, I guess, from the essential role of producing Canadian content.

223 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So along with what you’re saying, then, would foreign streamers also have access to the funds in your proposal?

224 MR. DESJARDINS: Well, in truth, the funds are really accessed by the producers. So you know, this is they can be triggered by a broadcaster, but the funds really go to the producers of the programs. And so we wouldn’t see that there would be any distinction or any difference going forward as opposed to what happens now. So you know, it’s not ‑‑ broadcasters don’t access the CMF, for instance; they help to trigger the funds that go to the independent producers.

225 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: One of the big questions with stakeholders has been should foreign streamers be paying into it and be able to draw on those funds. So just so I have clarity, what are you saying? You’re saying that that’s not an issue?

226 MS. YULL: Again, it’s the independent producers who would access the funds. So they could access the funds for productions that would be aired on Canadian broadcasters and on streamers.

227 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay.

228 MS. YULL: So I think this is one of the ways we could encourage partnerships with Canadian broadcasters, with Canadian producers is for the streamers to be working in collaboration with Canadian broadcasters and producers in the creation of Canadian content.

229 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So what would you say to critics who would say that this might be a way that ‑‑ a transfer of production monies from them to you, to your members?

230 MR. DESJARDINS: Again, it’s really the independent producers that are drawing these funds. So our members have never ‑‑ again, they can trigger the funds for the independent producers, but this is not something where those funds would flow in and then flow to our members through those independent production funds.

231 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. I want to talk about risky programming. Obviously, the industry has changed quite a bit. Probably none of us could have foreseen where it would land in the 21st century. That brings into focus some issues about programming and what’s sustainable, what isn’t. So I’m wondering what types of programming in your view are now risky, risky to produce, or at risk generally in a transformed system that includes Canadian and foreign online ventures and also traditional television?

232 MR. DESJARDINS: Certainly, for us, the primary concern that we’ve been focused on is news. We recognize the fact that ‑‑ you know, there was a brief discussion earlier about news, and one of the key elements of news is that it is costly to produce, but it’s also very ephemeral. You effectively have the moment that the news is broadcast to monetize. It’s not something that can be sold into subsequent windows. There’s the 25‑year IP rights on news, or probably ‑‑ I mean there’s still things that can be done with news content to repackage it. In general, news has sort of an ephemeral, immediate value, so that is a challenge. It is expensive to produce. It takes people, it takes professionals, especially television news, which takes a great deal of professional input into it.

233 Again, one of the things that was kind of a principle of the way that the broadcasting system used to work, which is that the entertainment programming would help to provide the revenues that would help to sustain the news programming. Now that we have streamers in our system who by their own admission don’t produce news, have no interest in news and don’t wish to fund news in any way, they are drawing the revenues that used to support news. That, to us, is why we continue to focus on that as a real key piece that is a challenge.

234 News is very popular with Canadians, but it’s difficult to monetize. It’s difficult to convince advertisers to put ads up against news, despite the fact that, you know, it is a place that Canadians very much value.

235 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: In your intervention you touched on news. In the intervention you said that Canadian broadcasters seem best positioned to support news production and broadcasting directly versus online streamers. Were you just talking online streamers, or were you also encompassing foreign online streamers and do you think they should be contributing to news? You’ve mentioned that they don’t want to, but I’m just wondering what you think would be best. What’s your opinion?

236 MR. DESJARDINS: I always hesitate before using the word “holistic”, I feel like it gets used too much in this town, but there is kind of a whole system that helps to support various elements within the broadcasting system in Canada. What the foreign streamers have been able to do is to come in and to take out of Canada, to take revenues out of Canada, and those were the sorts of things that helped to ensure that news was one of the pieces that could get produced. Again, whether they are doing news themselves, I think that, by and large, Canadians probably would not put a level of trust and confidence in news that was produced by a foreign entity, but at the same time, they are taking some of the resources out of the system that help to support news and, on that level, that is the rationale for them having to put money back into news.

237 This is not, in fact, unlike what is happening right now from the point of view of BDUs being asked to support news. I think that there is a misunderstanding out there among the foreign players that the BDUs are benefitting from news funding. In fact, there are ‑‑ the majority of BDUs in Canada do not have any sort of media company associated with it that produces news and they are still asked, through the Independent Local News Fund, to support news.

238 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: When it comes to support, there’s different forms that support can take. Funds, funding is one, paying into funds. There’s also incentives. I’m wondering if you have any thoughts on incentives that may work with foreign online streamers to help to support news, as you put it.

239 MR. DESJARDINS: Go ahead.

240 MS. YULL: I think we favour the funding model that you adopted in your initial contribution decision. Asking the foreign streamers to direct a portion of their funds to the ILNF was a significant and important first step. Unfortunately, we haven’t seen the benefit of that yet, we all know that it’s under appeal, but I think asking them to support through a financial contribution in the same way that BDUs contribute, that’s the right approach for news. I don’t think we expect Netflix to do news production, so I’m not sure ‑‑ it’s an interesting question and we will reflect on it before we file our final reply, but I’m not sure that we want to incent them to do news programming; I think we’d like to see them reinvest some of the revenue they’re taking out of Canada back into Canadian news production through –

241 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: What you’re saying is that you want them to put money into news, into the fund. Okay.

242 One final news’ question. I just wanted to ‑‑ since we’ve got you sitting in front of us today, what do you think is needed to save news in the evolving system? I know it’s a big question and we don’t have a lot of time, but if you could ‑‑ and I do have other topics I want to move on to.

243 MR. DESJARDINS: I’ll get cozy. I do think that, again, for us it’s been about the resources that are being drawn out of the system and drawn, you know, out of where our members would have, in previous decades, been able to benefit from advertisers and subscribers to be able to help support that, so we’d see who were putting forward the notion that news is being supported by other means. It is very clear that both in the act and in the policy direction news is identified as an important piece to be supported.

244 The Online News Act has created funds to support news, but having said that, I think it was always intended to be a piece of an overall puzzle. Frankly, right now, a broadcaster, an OSR, is valued at half the value of print journalists through that program. It’s approximately about $7,000 per year per full‑time broadcast journalist. That’s not enough to help to save the system. It may be enough to help keep some journalists in newsrooms, but that is not the one and only way to support news.

245 MS. YULL: If I may add? I think we would also, particularly within the Commission’s purview, increase flexibility, so reducing obligations to contribute to the traditional category of programs of national interest to free broadcasters’ budgets to invest more in news than perhaps in drama, because some broadcasters would prefer to direct their money toward news. It’s another way in which the Commission can support news.

246 I had another thought and I’ve lost it. If it comes back to me I’ll let you know.

247 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: If it comes back to you raise your hand. I’m happy to toss it back.

248 MS. YULL: Thank you

249 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: You also stated that you don’t think ‑‑ I’m sticking with PNI. We’ve talked quite a bit now about news, but there are other at‑risk types of programming as well. I’m wondering how you think those programs should be supported if you don’t think PNI commitments are necessary any longer. Is it incentives? What’s your plan?

250 MR. DESJARDINS: I do think that PNI hasn’t necessarily evolved with the changes in the audiences with what audiences are seeking out. You know, 20 years ago, if you were to look at the top 20 shows in either Canada or the U.S., you may see dramas and comedies and whatnot. I think if you take a look at what audiences are seeking out now, it is reality, sports, news, things that drive audiences to live broadcasting. That’s not to say that there isn’t a place for those other categories, but we actually think that the influx of the foreign broadcasters or the foreign online streamers provides more of a venue for that sort of content. It is more likely to be the sort of content that a streamer would be interested in acquiring as opposed to some of those live elements. Although, you know, the streamers are involved in live broadcasting as well, to an increasing degree, especially when there is significant value to be had there, and I don’t think that we should assume that those pieces of programming that is very valuable to Canadian broadcasters would not be eaten up by foreign players. Again, I think that PNI probably reflects categories of programming that are still valuable, but are not necessarily as central to what audiences are seeking out today.

251 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: What about children’s programming?

252 MR. DESJARDINS: I guess the challenge with that is that there is an abundance of children’s programming that is out there and accessible. I won’t run with –

253 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I only ask because you mentioned live programs. Children’s programming is something that doesn’t fall into that live category, so I was just wondering if you have a different take on incentivizing or funding or anything. If you don’t have an answer, that’s fine.

254 MR. DESJARDINS: Before I run with the ball here, let us come back to you after some thought on that.

255 We do know that the marketplace for children’s programming is challenged. In part, that’s because there are so many players in the system now, you know, that are making children’s programming available beyond Canadian broadcasters.

256 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you.

257 I want to move on to dual‑language markets now. Regarding French‑language programming, you state that the higher CPE obligations currently imposed on French‑language broadcasters should be reconsidered. However, you also state that the Commission must recognize that the two markets are very different.

258 Can you expand on your views of how the Commission should differ its approach to CPE contributions according to language markets?

259 MS. YULL: I think one of the very compelling things we heard this morning from AQPM is the differences in the markets, including the fact that Quebecois content is very popular in Quebec, so I think there’s nothing ‑‑ that the approaches do need to be different. I think overall what we’d like to see, I’ll just be blunt, what we’d like to see is less regulation, less onerous regulation and the administrative burden that goes with detailed regulations.

260 I remember what my second point was, which sort of fits in here, talking about news, for example, is more flexible definitions and less focus on whether it’s locally reflective and locally meaningful, and all the intricacies of the definitions. I think that also applies with respect to CPE. I think the obligations can be different in Quebec and Ontario, and you will ‑‑ sorry, Quebec and the rest of Canada, and you will see the submissions of our members are quite different. Quebecor’s positions are quite different from the positions of other broadcasters because their market is so very different, so I think the rules can be different. We’d like to see them be less.

261 We would like the flexibility to have a spending obligation. Some of our members might commit to do more programs of national interest. Some of our members may commit to do more children’s programming. That’s why we like the idea of tailored contributions, where each broadcaster will make the commitments they feel fits better within their market, within the range of services that they operate and with their audiences.

262 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

263 I saw you sitting in the audience earlier when you were listening to AQPM earlier. It says in its intervention, and it was brought out in their discussion today:

“It is essential that the CRTC maintain the obligation on conventional broadcasters preventing the required investment in French‑language content from actually being directed towards programs dubbed in French and intended primarily for English‑language markets.” (As read)

264 MR. DESJARDINS: I don’t think that we, as the industry, have a specific view on that, that’s something ‑‑ again, knowing the different linguistic and programming profiles of our individual members, it may be more appropriate to ask them specifically.

265 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

266 Data confidentiality; obviously, we need to make sure that whatever is implemented is doing the job that it’s supposed to do. Data is very important.

267 You state that reporting requirements must be applied “equitably”. Many online undertakings, for their part, are asking the Commission to maintain the current approach to confidentiality. How do you respond to that? What’s your take on equity when you say “equitably”? We know it doesn’t mean equal. What does that mean to you?

268 MS. YULL: I think it’s a challenge and I respect that it’s going to be a tough balancing act, because the platforms are much more reticent to provide information to the Commission, but at the same time, Canadian broadcasters are providing a great deal of information, so equitability would mean reducing some of the information you require us to reveal on a broadcaster‑by‑broadcaster basis. For example, the aggregate returns of the larger broadcasters, they’re required to reveal a great deal of information that would normally be kept confidential, so there’s an element of reducing some of the disclosure of individual data. I think we do need the aggregate data, we all benefit from having a clear understanding of what’s going on in our market, so there is a balancing act there.

269 I think some of the confidentiality requests of the foreign streamers has to be ignored and there has to be more disclosure, but then there also has to be a bit less disclosure on the Canadian side. I think you’ll see some of our members have strong feelings about that, so we’re sort of ‑‑ yeah, we’re asking you to find that balance between disclosure of information that is useful to the industry to understand trends and developments and to measure compliance.

270 I also think it puts a greater burden on the Commission to check compliance. For example, in the contributions, you know, we have no idea who has to contribute. We have no idea how much they have to contribute. That’s kind of a bit of a schnozzle, which we’ve all figured out, but I think it puts a great deal of pressure on the Commission to be checking compliance more actively and more proactively.

271 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: What about pressure on the industry, you know, compiling data, and so on and so forth? Some of your members are big. Some of your members are very small. I imagine that you’re hearing about the burden of some of that. The reason I ask that is because it leads me into AI. I’m wondering whether AI offers any solution to data collection or monitoring, or any of those things. Have you any insight into that at all?

272 MR. DESJARDINS: You are right. We do have members of different sorts of size and scale and with different levels of resources to be able to gather the information and report it back. You know, even our largest members, that’s a challenge and a struggle for them. We haven’t seen anything at this point that would direct us to believe that AI would be a solution in that. I don’t think that we know that it isn’t either. I think we’re still in sort of the early days of wondering how AI can be used internally for those sorts of processes and to what extent it can understand the data and organize it and whatnot. It’s certainly not clear at this point, but it is ‑‑ reporting does take effort and energy. I think that is one of the reasons why we mention in I think both what we submitted and today is to make sure that, you know, we’re counting what matters and it’s not sort of like, “Send us all your information and then we’ll sort of fish around in it”; it’s to be more focused in terms of what’s being asked of broadcasters.

273 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

274 That’s all I had, but I do know that there were a couple of questions there that I think I might have caught you off‑guard and I just want to give you an opportunity if there’s anything that I didn’t ask you or that you wanted to flesh out before I hand it over to my colleagues. Is there anything that you wanted to add?

275 MS. YULL: No

276 MR. DESJARDINS: No.

277 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: No. All right. I will hand it back to the Chair, then. Thank you very much.

278 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Naidoo.

279 We’ll turn things over to Commissioner Paquette.

280 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you, madame la Présidente.

281 Regarding the question of the programming at risk other than news, you suggest that the offer of the international online services is more adapted for this kind of programming. I was wondering what about the Canadian online services; could they play a role in this field?

282 MR. DESJARDINS: You know, I believe on a certain level they do, but I think just in general, and as a ‑‑ going back to our general principle of flexibility, I think that identifying certain types of programming, we just think that the definition of PNI needs to be expanded out to more properly reflect what it is that audiences are looking for. I thought that Commissioner Scott’s question was on point at the end of the last session in terms of understanding what it is that audiences are looking for.

283 I think all players in the system can help to support many different types of programming, but I think that the distinction there is that what is re‑sellable globally from Canada would be programs like ‑‑ would be certain sorts of programs as opposed to what is sellable to Canadian audiences, you know, talking about the contrast between the market of 40 million versus the market of 10 billion. That’s where we think that the global players may have more of an interest and more of an ability to support some of those other programs, such as drama, children’s programming and whatnot.

284 MS. YULL: I would just add that we still think it’s important to fund through the CMF and the Certified Independent Production Funds. You know, we support funding going toward those bodies, with the CMF funding effectively the same categories of programming that the Commission defines as programs of national interest, including children’s programming, which shall rocket funds supporting children’s programming. I think these funds need to continue to receive support through the Commission’s contribution framework. These are important mechanisms to ensure that this programming is being made, that the programming is being made, the broadcasters are investing in that programming and that they will broadcast it.

285 You know, the ecosystem that we have right now works pretty well and we want to see it continue.

286 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: It’s holistic. Is that the –

287 MS. YULL: That word he hates. He knows I didn’t use it because he doesn’t like it, yeah.

288 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Of course, at the centre of your intervention you plead for a recalibration of the system. At the centre of this, you make a very huge case about de‑regulation it seems at the centre of the interventions of most of the broadcasters that are intervening to this hearing.

289 I was wondering, is deregulation the priority? Is that at the centre of what ‑‑ is it the first thing that we should do? Because I’m wondering, would it be enough? Like deregulating ‑‑ if we deregulate, would it be enough considering the competition from the international service considering the difficulty often to adapt to the changes in the viewer habits?

290 So is that the ultimate solution to the problems that the broadcasters are experiencing?

291 MR. DESJARDINS: It’s an important piece. It definitely is an important piece to what I think that we feel needs to come out of the sequence of processes. At present, again, our members are highly regulated. Their competitors are, to this point, still unregulated. So some equilibrium between those two.

292 We think that the foreign platforms are going to come in and ask for essentially no regulation at all and, look, the Commission is an organization, it’s an institution. Some of this regulation is done because it’s always been done and I think that it’s really important for the Commission to take a look at those regulations within this new context, within this new competitive context, and to really ask what is important to be done. And I think that there needs to be a serious discussion in terms of if you’re going to apply regulation to Canadian broadcasters that’s not being applied to foreign streamers, why is that, and what is the implication, understanding the fact that, you know, just from an investment point of view the foreign streamers have a massive head up over top of our members.

293 Our members, by virtue of the restrictions on their ownership levels, the target audience of, again, 40 million Canadians versus 10 billion people around the globe. They have access to all of the capital in the world as opposed to what our members do, so that, for us ‑‑ that’s really key. It can’t be a matter of maintaining regulations on Canadian broadcasters because that’s what we’ve always done.

294 I think that there can’t be any sacred cows when it comes to the regulations that are placed on broadcasters.

295 MS. YULL: I would just add that every regulation comes with a host of administrative work that goes with it as well, so there’s ‑‑ that’s only a small piece of it. But in addition to the bigger issues, there’s also the smaller issues of not having to report on certain things, only having to report on the things that really matter, and decreasing some of that administrative burden as a result of reducing some of the regulatory burden is also valuable.

296 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you.

297 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.

298 Let’s to go Vice‑Chair Scott.

299 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks.

300 So my question is about the concept of flexibility versus prescriptiveness, but my question is also about potato salad.

301 So we’ve got a lot of objectives and a lot of types of programming that we’re trying to advance. There are lots of folks that are willing and able to contribute meaningfully, but everyone wants the flexibility to contribute the thing that they would most like to contribute, which makes me think a lot of a potluck supper. How can we ensure maximum flexibility while also ensuring that not everybody brings potato salad to the supper?

302 And you can feel free to argue by analogy or by fact. I’ll take either.

303 But really, just ‑‑ because a lot of the solutions actually sound quite prescriptive, but even you, yourselves, have mentioned the word “flexibility” quite a bit.

304 MR. DESJARDINS: It took a second before the potato salad analogy came back and, believe me, you don’t want me to talk in analogies because I’ll be here all day.

305 But look, I think that we’re already seeing a diversity of programming that is out there amongst our members and I think it’s one of the things that I highlighted off the top is that we have members who have their own particular strengths and priorities and places where they like to invest and yet, at the same time, if you take a look at the program offerings of our members, I think that they are responsive to the audiences. And so, you know, I think that there is ‑‑ allow me to torture the analogy, which is to say that they are thinking about who is going to be at the potluck and understanding that they need to bring more than just what the person ‑‑ what the next person is going to bring, so we already see that diversity of programming out in the system.

306 In some ways, I think that the current regulatory framework undervalues things such as news or such as lifestyle programming, which is something that audiences are very interested in.

307 So I think that the diversity is ‑‑ of programming is already there and, to be frank, I think that this flexibility would help certainly from the perspective of our broadcasters for them to be able to provide a full smorgasbord.

308 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So just to follow up, are there pockets of programming ‑‑ and I’m thinking of those like the most uneconomic types of programming. Are those most at risk and does that necessitate a specific requirement or is there potentially a role for incentives in the form of multipliers so that you get, you know, 1.5X credit or contributing that type of programming that is notably less economic than what you might otherwise prefer to produce?

309 MR. DESJARDINS: Yeah. And I think as a general principle for us, you know, incentives are a much better way than quotas or requirements to achieve outcomes. I think, you know, that ‑‑ in those areas where there is certain programming that is expensive to produce or whatnot that the rationale behind investment in it would be, I think ‑‑ you know, if there is some incentive there.

310 Look, and just taking a step back, I do think that ‑‑ and I’ve mentioned investment already. I mean, I think that it’s a key piece of this of how do we make money flow into the Canadian system and through to the various players. And certainly from the point of view of broadcasters, if broadcasters are put into a corner where they’re not investment ready businesses, then that is going to make it challenging for financial resources to flow through them. Either internally, they won’t invest in certain areas, or they won’t be able to attract the investment of others into the sector.

311 MS. YULL: I think one of the things that we object to is an across‑the‑board application of, for example, programs of national interest as it is done now. And so there are some broadcasters who may choose to commit to do programs of national interest under the old definition, you know, a small contribution in that way rather than a larger CPE obligation. But perhaps another broadcaster might prefer to commit all of their resources into local news. And so I think partially what we’re after is no obligations of ‑‑ you know, no one size fits all obligation.

312 And I think that it’s sort of a do the choose your own adventure. We want choose your own adventure potluck, too, and ‑‑ but I think you could maybe ask people, you know, I would like someone to do the Swedish meatballs and I think someone will step up and say, “Yeah, I’ll do Swedish meatballs. I’m okay with that. I just ‑‑ but don’t make me do potato salad”.

313 I think that’s what we’re arguing in favour of when we talk about flexibility and about tailored contributions. I think through the tailored contributions proceedings, some broadcasters will make commitments to do drama and documentaries, but not everyone should have to do drama and documentaries.

314 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Let’s go to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

315 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you, Madam Chair. And this food analogy is just so great, so I’ll keep going at it.

316 You mentioned choose your own adventure potluck. If I’m a hostess and I organize a potluck, I want to make sure that not everybody brings potato salad. I want to make sure there’s some, you know, equity or fairness in whatever people bring to the table. If somebody brings caviar, it’s not fair if the other person brings bagels, right.

317 So this idea of having a place where fair negotiations or fair discussions between the various players, for me, is an important piece of the puzzle. And your colleagues from AQPM this morning talked about this idea of establishing a code of practice.

318 So I would be interested in knowing your reactions with respect to this particular idea and then I’ll have another question.

319 MR. DESJARDINS: So in terms of a code of practice, you know, I think that this is similar to other sorts of codes or obligations that the production sector has put forward in the past. You know, I think that we’ve always opposed having the government or the regulator intervene in those ‑‑ in that business relationship between respective members in the sector and, you know, in truth, I think that there are many more players in the system to whom producers are able to sell, so I think that that addresses some of the concerns that they would have outlined in terms of, you know, they’ve stated that they believe that there’s only so many broadcasters to go to to help trigger funding and we would see that, no, there’s actually a number of other players. There’s more players than there’s ever been to be able to help them get their content made and get it out there.

320 So I wouldn’t see this sort of code of conduct as being urgently needed.

321 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: But what would be the mischief?

322 Let me push you a little bit on that. I understand what you’re saying, but what would be the mischief of having such a code?

323 MR. DESJARDINS: You know, I think that it would put the thumb on the scale between ‑‑ in negotiations between different business entities. It would effectively ‑‑ it would give an already greater advantage to independent producers than they already have and some of those advantages are already prescribed into the regulatory system.

324 They are the ones who are able to access funding. By and large, the in‑house productions or the ability for broadcasters to be fully recognized as producers within the current regulatory system is impeded in order to help create an independent production sector and to help foster that, so we don’t think that there needs to be any further measures taken to help foster that independent production sector. It’s already being well looked after.

325 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: All right. Let’s move just to a second question, if I may.

326 You did remind us that, of course, your members are also producers of content and so one of the issues we haven’t heard today is around discoverability, which is, in some respects, the name of the game, right. You product content, you want eyeballs. You want eyeballs in Canada and ‑‑ but it’s a smaller market, so you probably need eyeballs elsewhere. But these eyeballs, wherever they live, need to be able to find that great content that your members are producing and that independent producers are producing as well.

327 So I’d like to hear your views a little bit about what is the role of the CRTC in respect to supporting, incentivizing, encouraging the discoverability of content.

328 MR. DESJARDINS: So again, I think that this is an area where flexibility is important, in part because there’s different sorts of platforms, different sorts of broadcasting undertakings who would be using different tools to be able to make programming discoverable, and so, you know, I don’t think that a one‑size‑fits all approach would be something that could be used.

329 I think some flexibility should be allotted so long as there is an ability to demonstrate that the programs are able to be found. And you know, frankly, if we go back again like 20 years to the idea of discoverability of Canadian programs, it’s so much easier now to do it than it was then, in part because we’re beyond the linear system and so if somebody wants to go and find something specifically Canadian or to find old episodes of Canadian programming, they are able to go and locate that.

330 So it’s, I think, allowing some flexibility to the platforms, whether if they’re Canadian, whether if they’re linear, whether if they’re online to be able to do discoverability in a way that’s meaningful for them.

331 MS. YULL: Yeah, I would only add that I think we should be ‑‑ a shame the platforms won’t be coming to the hearing, but asking the platforms for how they think they can contribute to ensuring pride of place for Canadian programming and Canadian programming services.

332 So I may be trespassing into the June hearing when I say so, but I think we need to talk about how the platforms can prioritize Canadian programming and Canadian programming services, make them more findable for Canadians.

333 THE CHAIRPERSON: Maybe I’ll just jump in here and we’ll end with Commissioner Naidoo, who I think has another question.

334 And this sort of flows from a question from my colleague, Commissioner Paquette. You’ve talked a lot about the need to regulate foreign streamers more heavily, you know, while alleviating the burden on Canadian broadcaster who you say are heavily regulated. You’ve used the word “recalibrating”.

335 If we look at the submissions from others, and again, we’ll hear from them during the hearing, but you know, the MPAC, for example, they point to the Act. They point to the Act to say we are to be treated differently and we should have fewer regulatory requirements. And I’m wondering if you could just respond to that.

336 MR. DESJARDINS: So let me start and then I’ll perhaps let Tandy finish because I know that she had thoughts on this.

337 But ‑‑ so to be clear, we are asking for streamers to be more regulated than they are currently, which is to say that, you know, they’re not regulated practically at this point. You know, there are certain things that were put into place which are still before the Federal Court of Appeal, but otherwise, there’s little, if anything, in terms of a regulatory touch.

338 So we’re not saying more heavily than Canadian broadcasters. We are saying more heavily than they are regulated at the moment.

339 In terms of their argument, we think that it is a self‑serving interpretation of that portion of the Broadcasting Act. It doesn’t say that they should be regulated less. It just says differently.

340 MS. YULL: I was trying to find my section of the Broadcasting Act, and I don’t have it with me.

341 I think we have to make a distinction that, in those clauses, reading the words very carefully, and I don’t have them in front of me, but they have an obligation to ‑‑ with respect to their Canadian programming and we have an obligation with respect to our programming overall, if I ‑‑ this is where you have to bear with me because I don’t have the words in front of me.

342 And so our obligation is to ensure the greatest ‑‑ oh, my gosh, I don’t have the words ‑‑ greatest practical use of Canadian resources in all of our programming, which we do by virtue of being Canadian broadcasters. Everything that we do, aside from our international programming, you know, the rest is 100 percent Canadian, everything that we do.

343 So I think they’ve misinterpreted those clauses and so our obligation’s with respect to all of the programming that we do and their obligation is with respect to their Canadian programming.

344 And for the Canadian programming, it must be highly Canadian and make great use of Canadian resources. And I have section 10 here that talks about, you know, what it takes for a Canadian program.

345 So I think we just have to read those clauses a little bit more carefully. They interpret them as requiring a different level of obligation. No, it requires an equitable level of obligation.

346 And the clause before is the one that applies to all of us equally, so I don’t think it gives them a ‑‑ I don’t think the Act requires them to have a different definition. I don’t think the Act requires them to have a lesser obligation. I think it supports the conclusion that it may not be a one‑size‑fits‑all model that you eventually go with and I think it’s about balance. And you know, I think we do want to see the playing field level. We would like to be regulated on a similar basis. And at the moment, it is both ‑‑ we are more regulated, 100 percent, right now, more regulated than they are because everything is up in the air with respect to foreign platforms.

347 And also, we are fearful that there’s ‑‑ that we have been regulating Canadian broadcasting for 50 ‑‑ how old am I ‑‑ 57 years in a certain way and we’re going to have to not keep regulating what’s easy and what we know. Sorry. I’m doing that thing where I forget who I work for.

348 That we can’t keep regulating Canadian broadcasters because we always have and because we know how to and it’s easy. And I think we need to make some sort of right turns on the regulation of Canadian broadcasters in light of the fact that we’re now competing with foreign broadcasters who are not used to being regulated, don’t want to be regulated, want to avoid regulation at all costs.

349 So the answer may not be to bring them all the way up to the level that we’re at, so that may mean levelling the playing field.

350 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you for that.

351 Maybe just turning things over to Commissioner Naidoo. So it is greatest practicable use versus maximum use.

352 So staying with the Act for a moment, so we know that we have these objectives under the Act. If we do reduce these regulatory requirements, how do we ensure at the CRTC that we are still meeting those policy objectives?

353 MS. YULL: I would just again point out that Canadian broadcasters, we’re not asking to be relieved of all of our obligations. I think we’re already contributing. We’re already hiring Canadians and creating Canadian jobs and, you know, the Canadian news that we do and the journalists that we hire and the towers that we maintain and the facilities that we build and the production that we do ourselves and the production that we do in partnership with Canadian independent productions. All of that will remain in place.

354 You know, we’re still going to broadcast Canadian programming. We’re still going to emphasize Canadian voices and Canadian options, but we don’t need quotas to make us do that. And having a level set of obligations means that it’ll put us on the same footing when we’re competing with behemoths.

355 And so I think it’s about reducing the inflexibility or reducing the impediments to us competing on an equal playing field with foreign platforms.

356 MR. DESJARDINS: Yeah. And if I can just maybe come back to what we were discussing in terms of news as a sort of example on this, the presence of those foreign players has made it more challenging to achieve some of the goals of the Act, in part because they are drawing Canadian revenues, Canadian dollars out of our system and out of our country. And so a number of the production funds, whether if it be the Independent Local News Fund ‑‑ and I know a number of the other production funds are finding challenges as the current structure is very much reliant on Canadian players in the system.

357 So, what we are saying is that the foreign players, as they are benefiting from the Canadian system, need to be able to help to give back into that system, and by them providing a bit more back, that likely, if they hadn’t entered our market at all, would have been revenues that may have stayed within the Canadian system already.

358 So, I think that for us, the reason why we say recalibrating or rebalancing is frankly just a recognition of the fact that the foreign players are taking a fair bit out, and to achieve those goals, they need to be able to give back in in a way that is similar or equitable to what it is that Canadian players are doing.

359 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.

360 Commissioner Naidoo, do you have a question about potato salad? Yes? Okay, we’ll ‑‑

361 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

362 I just wanted, for clarity, to go back to a question that I asked in a couple of different ways because I just want to get a really concise answer. You had mentioned balance, an equitable system, giving back to the system as far as foreign online streamers go.

363 So, for clarity, if foreign streamers pay into funds that support news which your members would deliver on, would those foreign streamers have the ability to offer news directly?

364 MR. DESJARDINS: So, again, as with a number of the funds, it’s not those who pay into the funds who access them. So, I would say, no, they would not be able to access news funds because, as is presently conceived, those who pay into news funds currently are not those who access them.

365 So, I believe that that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the platforms from the outset, is that they have been talking about the funds, whether if it be news funds or others, as to whether or not if they can access them. And BDUs do not access the Independent Local News Fund today. The funds that we would be seeking for the foreign players to pay into those funds would not be funds that they could access.

366 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Right, and you have seen their arguments from some of them that, if they pay into it, they think that they should be able to draw on them. So, I am wondering, then, what you think about the fact that to some it could be seen as taking monies from them for your members ‑‑ taking monies from them for your members that they’re not allowed to draw on. And what is your response to that?

367 MR. DESJARDINS: You know, I think that some of this goes back to the idea that they are distributors as well. They have a direct relationship with the subscriber. There is a rationale for why it is that the broadcast distribution undertakings, who have that direct relationship with the subscribers, should have to support several aspects of the broadcasting system in general. And we don’t see that these platforms are different in that sense.

368 And in fact, you know, in talking about the things that the platforms have been taking out of the Canadian media system, they started about 11 years ago by promising all of the content in the world for $7.99, and now most people find that they are actually paying four, five different streamers $20 a month. So, people have reached the point where this idea of cutting the cord no longer makes as much sense as it did 10 years ago. It’s just that now all of the money is flowing out of our country.

369 And so, again, they are distributors. We think that they should have to help to support some of those essential goals in the system.

370 MS. YULL: I would just go back ‑‑ sorry, Commissioner Naidoo ‑‑ to go back also to the Broadcasting Act. And so, you know, you want to play in our ‑‑ you want to come to our barbecue, you’ve got to contribute to our barbecue. And maybe that’s ultimately what we’re talking about, is the Broadcasting Act says all elements of the system need to contribute back into the system.

371 And they don’t all have to do it the same way, and they don’t all have to do the same things, but if you want to be a participant in the Canadian broadcasting system, you’re taking revenue out of the Canadian broadcasting system, then you’re going to contribute back into that system.

372 And among other objectives in the Act ‑‑ and there are a lot of them, and you have to balance some that are competing, but one of the objectives of the Broadcasting Act is that there be contributions to support news. And so, we think that because they’re having such a dire impact on our revenues ‑‑ not directly on advertising, but on our revenues and on the revenues of Canadian BDUs ‑‑ so, right now, the ILNF is funded entirely through BDUs who are suffering declines in subscription revenue because these streamers are taking away viewers.

373 And so, just like one of the ways in which BDUs contribute to this broadcasting system I through the funding of news, through their 0.3 percent that goes to the ILNF, similarly, we believe the streamers should have to contribute to news through production funds, through a news fund. And in your wisdom, you decided to require a contribution from them into news production, and we think that is the right way to go.

374 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. I’m ‑‑ oh, please ‑‑ please go ahead.

375 MR. DESJARDINS: The last one, because I know with all this food talk, everyone’s stomachs are growling. But I think it does ‑‑ I just want to underline that that is one of the ideas that is coming in from the foreign players, which is that what they put in should benefit themselves.

376 And that has been their approach, I think, throughout much of this process, has been that they only want to put in what it is that will ultimately benefit them. And I don’t think that that has been the principle under where our members have been regulated, and it’s not the principle that other players in the system have been regulated. And therefore, I think that the idea that the regulation should only work to help support their own needs, I think, is something that that point of view or that specific point underlines.

377 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you. I’ve got the clarity I needed. I’m glad I asked it again. Thank you very much.

378 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I think that’s all of the questions for the panel, but we would like to turn things back over to you, if you had any concluding thoughts.

379 MR. DESJARDINS: Thank you. I forgot you were going to do this, and so I didn’t prepare anything. So, if we had appeared at the end as opposed to the beginning, we may have had some.

380 Truly appreciate the opportunity to appear on behalf of our members, and again, as I said, we do know that a number of them are going to be here, so we will be here with our pompoms, behind them over the next few weeks. And I do hope that you are able to hear some of their specific concerns. I think that we have provided you where we think that we have general consensus, but recognizing the fact that our members do have different business models, different programming interests and profiles, that they will come, I think, with some specific points of view on some of these things.

381 And I thank you for hearing us out, for hearing them out, and for considering the broadcasters as really still a critical piece of this puzzle of helping to get Canadian content to Canadian audiences.

382 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. That was very clear on the fly.

383 Madam Secretary?

384 THE SECRETARY: Merci. We will take the lunch break and be back at 12:45.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 11 h 33

‑‑‑ Reprise à 12 h 46

385 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back, everyone.

386 Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de l’Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l’Ontario.

387 S’il vous plaît vous présenter et présenter vos collègues. Vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

388 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Absolument.

389 Madame la Présidente, Madame, Monsieur les Vice‑présidents, Mesdames les Commissaires, bonjour.

390 D’abord, merci de nous laisser vous présenter notre point de vue sur le contenu canadien et tout ce qui l’entoure.

391 Mon nom est Xavier Brassard‑Bédard, je suis le président‑directeur général de l’Office des télécommunications éducatives de langue française de l’Ontario, mieux connu sous le nom de TFO.

392 Avec moi aujourd’hui :

393 ‑ Sonia Boisvert, qui est vice‑présidente, Contenus éducatifs, de divertissement et de l’information;

394 ‑ Linda Godin, qui est directrice des communications et des relations gouvernementales; et

395 ‑ Roxalie Lebeau‑Hébert, qui est directrice, Gouvernance et services juridiques.

396 La mission de TFO, c’est de produire, créer et diffuser des contenus éducatifs, de divertissement et d’information pour les francophones en situation minoritaire.

397 Les contenus que nous diffusons sur toutes nos plateformes reflètent les communautés francophones d’un peu partout au pays et sont importants pour renforcer la vitalité des communautés.

398 Le par et pour les francophones est au cœur de notre offre. L’année dernière, 85 pour cent de notre contenu original était issu des communautés francophones. Nous faisons affaire avec des maisons de productions franco‑ontariennes, acadiennes, franco‑manitobaines, et cetera.

399 Nous ne cessons de le dire : Se voir et s’entendre, avec toute notre diversité et tous nos accents, est crucial pour la fierté, l’identité et le sentiment d’appartenance.

400 La francophonie canadienne est un pilier important de notre identité canadienne. Nous en parlons beaucoup ces temps‑ci. La francophonie fait partie de ce tissu culturel canadien que nous chérissons tous. Elle est unique et il faut la faire briller.

401 TFO est aussi unique. TFO est la seule télévision publique éducative desservant les communautés francophones vivant en milieu minoritaire. Nous prenons ce rôle à cœur et avec détermination, tout comme celui d’être un média public.

402 TFO célébrera ses 40 ans en 2027. En 40 ans, il y a eu beaucoup d’enfants qui ont regardé nos émissions. Ils ont commencé par Mini TFO, Mégallo. À l’adolescence, ils ont écouté Volt, Panorama et maintenant, ils consomment ONFR. Aujourd’hui, ils sont parents et fiers de l’être et font découvrir à leurs enfants ce que TFO a à leur offrir.

403 Cette transmission de l’affection à l’endroit de TFO et de la culture francophone n’est pas facile, surtout en milieu minoritaire, mais c’est tellement gratifiant et tellement important.

404 M^me BOISVERT : Créer, produire et diffuser du contenu pour les communautés francophones vivant en milieu minoritaire est coûteux et difficile à monétiser. Pourquoi? Essentiellement parce que le marché est petit et dispersé partout au pays.

405 Pour les nouvelles, c’est la même chose : risquées, coûteuses et pas facilement monétisables. Pourtant, les médias qui offrent des nouvelles avec une lentille francophone sont tellement rares, mais importants pour les francophones, pour qu’on parle d’eux et pour la santé démocratique de notre pays. Déjà en nombre réduit, ils sont malheureusement de moins en moins nombreux.

406 Quant aux émissions jeunesse, qui comptent pour environ 80 pour cent de la programmation de TFO, c’est aussi coûteux à produire et difficilement monétisable.

407 En programmation jeunesse présentement, il y a tous les éléments pour la tempête parfaite :

408 ‑ les jeunes canadiens écoutent de moins en moins de contenu canadien;

409 ‑ les jeunes francophones écoutent de plus en plus de contenu anglophone;

410 ‑ les médias canadiens produisent et diffusent de moins en moins de contenu jeunesse;

411 ‑ il y a de moins de moins de financement pour ce type d’émission, qui, je le répète, n’est pas payant à produire, du moins à court terme.

412 Mais le contenu jeunesse, c’est du long terme. C’est la fondation du public de demain et de l’identité canadienne de demain aussi.

413 Si nos enfants ne consomment pas de contenu canadien, comment pourront‑ils avoir des référents culturels canadiens? De quoi aura l’air notre identité canadienne dans 20 ans si nous n’agissons pas maintenant?

414 Les écrans sont des outils formidables pour façonner l’identité d’une communauté. C’est la raison pour laquelle TFO propose, comme l’a fait Télé‑Québec, la création d’un fonds pour soutenir la programmation et la production de contenu jeunesse au Canada, avec une part de l’enveloppe dédiée au contenu francophone en milieu minoritaire.

415 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : L’investissement en contenu jeunesse, c’est un investissement à long terme. C’est la base de la création de la culture identitaire. Dans le modèle d’affaires actuel, dans l’instabilité financière de nombreux médias, il est impératif de mettre en place des mécanismes forts pour soutenir la programmation jeunesse, comme la création d’un fonds.

416 Le CRTC a un rôle à jouer pour rattraper ce déficit en émissions jeunesse le plus rapidement possible. Je dirais même plus, il n’a pas seulement un rôle à jouer, c’est sa responsabilité d’aider les télédiffuseurs à rattraper ce déficit de contenu jeunesse.

417 Je vous remercie de nous avoir invités à venir comparaître. On peut répondre à vos questions.

418 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Alors, merci beaucoup. Merci d’être venus ici aujourd’hui et d’avoir partagé vos perspectives avec les membres du Panel. On va commencer avec la conseillère Paquette. Merci.

419 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Merci, Madame la Présidente.

420 M. Brassard‑Bédard, c’est la première fois qu’on se rencontre depuis votre nomination. Alors, je voudrais commencer par vous féliciter avec un peu de retard, mais quand même.

421 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Merci.

422 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Alors, je voudrais commencer par parler d’émissions jeunesse. Bien entendu, je n’ai aucun doute que j’ai des spécialistes devant moi.

423 J’ai regardé un rapport de la CMPA, le rapport “ Profil 2023‑2024 », qui démontre effectivement que, de façon générale, le volume d’émissions jeunesse pour enfants a chuté de 41 pour cent en 2023 ‑‑ c’est des chiffres qui datent de 2023 ‑‑ donc, a chuté 387 millions de dollars. Mais dans le marché francophone, on voit que la production jeunesse a augmenté, pas énormément, mais de 8 pour cent, malgré un budget moindre.

424 Je vous demanderais ma première question : Qu’est‑ce qui explique cette augmentation dans le marché francophone et, en fait, est‑ce qu’on réussit à faire mieux avec moins ou est‑ce que c’est la programmation qui s’appauvrit?

425 M^me BOISVERT : Je peux m’aventurer dans une réponse. Donc, le 41 pour cent dont vous faites mention, c’est vraiment... ce n’est pas uniquement dans le marché anglophone, c’est un peu partout. C’est ça, c’est francophone, anglophone, et 8 pour cent dans le marché francophone, qui est quand même très peu.

426 Je crois qu’il y a certains collègues chez d’autres diffuseurs, j’ai déjà entendu qu’ils ont vraiment misé sur la qualité pour continuer de produire et en faire moins. Parce que la compétition dans le marché du contenu jeunesse est vraiment internationale, beaucoup américaine, puis que quand c’est difficile de comparer la qualité de ce qui se fait avec des mégabudgets, donc, d’essayer de... Mais là, t’sais, ça, ça réduit le nombre d’émissions que t’es capable de développer en contenu jeunesse, mais t’essaies d’aller chercher la plus haute qualité possible avec les budgets que t’as.

427 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis votre expérience chez TFO, est‑ce que vous avez pu réduire la quantité ou réduire la qualité du contenu?

428 M^me BOISVERT : On a toujours des productions internes. Donc, il faut revoir notre façon de faire pour alléger la production, avoir des productions plus simples, simplifier la production. L’enjeu qu’on a avec les producteurs indépendants, c’est que le financement ne vient pas uniquement de nous. Donc, c’est de composer avec plusieurs valeurs, plusieurs enveloppes, et c’est là que ça devient difficile. Si tu n’es pas capable d’aller chercher, je ne sais pas, trois enveloppes pour financer ton projet, peut‑être que oui, tu dois jouer avec la qualité, peut‑être que tu dois réduire le nombre d’épisodes. T’sais, il faut retourner à la table à dessin pour fonctionner avec le financement qu’ils sont capables d’aller chercher.

429 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Très bien, merci.

430 Maintenant, vous proposez la création d’un fonds dédié pour contrer le déclin en question. Ce que ferait un fonds, c’est qu’il amènerait de l’argent supplémentaire dans la machine, mais est‑ce que c’est le financement... pensez‑vous que le financement est au cœur du problème maintenant ou est‑ce qu’il n’y a pas plus un problème de découvrabilité du contenu et de capacité d’aller rejoindre des auditoires qui sont rendus extrêmement difficiles à capturer?

431 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Je pense que c’est un mélange des deux. Je pense que les fonds ne sont pas présents, c’est difficile à monétiser, c’est difficile à vendre. On l’a vu dans les dernières années. Il y a des chaînes francophones privées dédiées au contenu jeunesse qui ont fermé leurs portes. Donc, ça n’encourage pas les producteurs indépendants à produire de nouveaux contenus, justement parce que c’est difficile à monétiser comme contenus. Puis comme grand diffuseur, c’est difficile d’aller chercher des revenus avec ces chaînes‑là et de continuer à les faire vivre.

432 Donc, je pense que c’est un enjeu qui est double, et évidemment l’enjeu de découvrabilité est là aussi. C’est difficile de se faire voir, se faire connaître, et c’est hyper difficile de faire voyager nos contenus. Mais je pense qu’il faut les retravailler sur les deux fronts. Mais les deux vont sûrement se rejoindre au bout, par exemple.

433 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Et est‑ce que vous pouvez nous parler des stratégies que vous utilisez de votre côté pour essayer d’aller rejoindre les auditoires de jeunes qui, on s’entend, sont extrêmement difficiles à rejoindre maintenant?

434 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Mais nous, un des gros avantages qu’on a, c’est qu’on a une plateforme éducative, en fait, qui s’appelle IDÉLLO, et IDÉLLO, c’est les contenus qui sont produits par TFO. On produit... En fait, tous les contenus qui sont produits chez nous sont produits avec l’aide d’enseignants. En fait, ces contenus‑là sont découpés et distribués sur la plateforme IDÉLLO, en fait, qui est diffusée en salles de classe en appui pédagogique aux enseignants. Donc, pour nous, c’est une façon d’assurer une certaine découvrabilité et d’aller chercher un sentiments d’appartenance, en fait, pour les jeunes qui regardent nos contenus et qui consomment nos contenus, puis évidemment peut‑être qu’en bout de ligne ça va les inciter à venir nous voir sur TFO.org ou à la chaîne télé sur le câble.

435 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Donc, le contenu éducatif est une avenue pour vous?

436 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Absolument. Absolument.

437 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Les plateformes comme telles, comment vous... est‑ce que vous réussissez à les promouvoir ou c’est surtout via le...

438 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Bien, on s’en sert évidemment pour promouvoir nos contenus. Ce qu’on espère, c’est que ça soit une première porte d’entrée, que les gens viennent après ça consommer nos contenus chez nous et créer un espèce de sentiment d’appartenance à TFO. Donc, oui. Mais oui, on utilise des plateformes pour faire un renvoi d’auditoire, en fait, sur notre canal de base.

439 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K.

440 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Oui.

441 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis l’objectif est encore de ramener les jeunes vers votre chaîne de base où ils peuvent avoir une expérience complète?

442 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Ils peuvent avoir une expérience complète évidemment sur TFO.org. Donc, l’objectif évidemment c’est de ramener ça à notre chaîne de base, évidemment. Oui.

443 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien.

444 Vous proposez la création d’un fonds. Je vais revenir vous poser quelques questions au sujet du fonds, mais dans son intervention, le Fonds Shaw Rocket ne propose pas comme tel un fonds mais propose plutôt des dépenses, des obligations de dépenses en émissions canadiennes. Donc, il propose, il suggère que toutes les EDR et tous les services en ligne consacrent 20 pour cent de leurs obligations à des dépenses en programmation jeunesse.

445 Alors, pouvez‑vous commenter cette proposition par rapport à un fonds, dépenses fonds? Pensez‑vous qu’une proposition vaut l’autre ou que la vôtre serait préférable?

446 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : C’est une bonne question. Il faudrait voir, en fait, la faisabilité de la mise en place de ce 20 pour cent aussi, puis voir si on réussit à aller plus loin puis à réussir à le mettre en place justement puis que ça soit respecté. C’est un peu l’enjeu qu’on a. Donc, c’est un peu pour ça qu’on propose un fonds qui serait peut‑être en parallèle au Fonds des Médias, justement dédié au contenu jeunesse. Donc, c’est pour ça qu’on privilégie l’avenue d’un fonds indépendant. Oui.

447 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Pourquoi un nouveau fonds? Est‑ce que les fonds actuels ne pourraient pas servir? Vous demandez un fonds spécifique. Avec un fonds spécifique vient des nouveaux formulaires à produire, vient des nouveaux frais de gestion. Donc, pourquoi un nouveau fonds par rapport aux fonds qui existent en ce moment?

448 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Bien, en fait, c’est pour donner le signal politique que d’investir en production jeunesse c’est important. Si on nomme le fonds le Fonds pour la production jeunesse, bien, c’est de l’argent qui s’en va directement à la production jeunesse et qui est respecté. Si on regarde le Fonds des Médias en ce moment, je pense que c’est 11 pour cent de l’enveloppe du Fonds des Médias qui va en jeunesse, mais ce n’est pas suffisant. Dans l’écosystème actuel et tout, il faut que ça soit un peu plus que ça, puis il faut que ça soit dédié, puis il faut que ça aille vraiment à la jeunesse. C’est ça l’enjeu. Donc, c’est pour ça qu’on propose un fonds, oui, avec la paperasse et tout, mais il y a peut‑être moyen aussi de faciliter cette paperasse‑là puis d’améliorer aussi les façons de faire dans la production de paperasse pour les différents fonds.

449 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Puis avez‑vous réfléchi à comment fonctionnerait le fonds en question, qui le financerait, à quelle hauteur, qui y aurait accès?

450 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Est‑ce qu’on est entré dans une grande réflexion sur qui devrait financer ce fonds‑là? Non. Par contre, à première vue, moi, je regarde... On parle beaucoup de télévision, on parle beaucoup de câblodistribution, mais il me semble que les contenus sont vus ailleurs et sous d’autres formats et sous d’autres écrans aujourd’hui. Il faudrait peut‑être ouvrir aussi notre façon de financer ces fonds‑là, puis essayer de voir où la jeunesse consomme, qu’est‑ce qu’ils consomment et comment, et faire payer peut‑être ces gens‑là ou les faire investir, en fait, dans un fonds pour la jeunesse.

451 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis est‑ce que ce fonds serait destiné uniquement à la programmation jeunesse en français ou est‑ce qu’on pourrait aussi soutenir la production pour le marché anglophone?

452 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Moi, je pense qu’il faut soutenir les deux productions au Canada, là. On n’a pas le choix.

453 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis dernière question en ce qui me concerne. Vous avez indiqué dans votre intervention que 80 pour cent de votre programmation est dédié à la programmation jeunesse, laquelle est difficile à monétiser. Pouvez‑vous nous parler de votre approche en ce qui concerne les partenariats, les partenariats soit nationaux ou à l’international ou avec des plateformes en ligne? Est‑ce que c’est quelque chose que vous faites et est‑ce que c’est une voie qui vous permettrait d’élargir l’auditoire potentiel?

454 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Oui, absolument. Puis on n’a pas le choix. On est un tout petit joueur au Canada, tant financièrement que dans la portée qu’on a. Donc, on n’a pas le choix. Si on veut survivre, si on veut continuer à grandir, si on veut continuer à... On a des produits de qualité. Si on veut continuer à ce que ces produits‑là soient vus, on n’a pas le choix de faire des partenariats. Que ce soit ici, à l’international, avec d’autres diffuseurs, on n’a pas le choix. Ça fait partie de notre façon de faire.

455 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Vous en faites donc?

456 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Oui.

457 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui.

458 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Absolument.

459 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Plusieurs?

460 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Oui.

461 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Très bien. Merci.

462 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup.

463 Alors, on va continuer avec notre vice‑présidente. Merci.

464 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci, Madame la Présidente, et merci à vous quatre pour votre présentation. C’est toujours un plaisir d’avoir TFO à notre table. Je pense que vous occupez un créneau qui est au cœur des conversations et de l’exploration que le CRTC doit faire.

465 Ma question sera donc très, très générale. Qu’est‑ce que vous attendez du CRTC? Vous avez des demandes qui sont quand même assez pointues. Je pense que vous avez mis en lumière les défis auxquels vous faites face en raison de la petitesse du marché et je pense que les questions de ma collègue la conseillère Paquette nous ont mis sur cette réflexion, sur les défis en matière d’exportabilité. Vous avez parlé de la création d’un fonds. Vous avez réagi un peu à la proposition d’augmenter les dépenses obligatoires. On n’a pas beaucoup parlé des incitatifs qu’on pourrait intégrer dans notre cadre réglementaire de façon à appuyer la programmation jeunesse et peut‑être aider des producteurs de contenu comme vous à exporter un contenu qui, à mon avis, a des auditoires à l’étranger. Il me semble que s’il y a bien un domaine qui est exportable, c’est probablement la programmation jeunesse. Alors, quelles sont vos attentes? Où voyez‑vous le rôle de la réglementation pour vous aider dans votre business? Merci.

466 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : C’est une grande question. Bien, évidemment, c’est de soutenir, en fait, la production jeunesse dans les réglementations justement, comme vous l’avez dit, d’assouplir certaines règles et donner une importance particulière à la programmation jeunesse dans vos pensées puis dans vos réflexions quand vous pensez à l’avenir de la télédiffusion au Canada. Je trouve que...

467 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Quand vous parlez d’assouplir certaines règles, vous avez... désolée de vous interrompre, mais vous voulez dire quoi précisément? Est‑ce qu’il y a des règles en particulier qui créent des obstacles pour l’atteinte de vos objectifs?

468 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Non, pas en particulier, mais je dirais peut‑être établir ou... T’sais, on parlait... Un peu plus tôt, l’AQPM parlait de certaines balises ‑‑ ou le terme exact, je ne me souviens plus du terme exact parce que c’était ce matin ‑‑ mais certains... d’encadrer un peu les relations entre les producteurs et les diffuseurs.

469 Je n’irais pas jusque là, mais je dirais peut‑être faciliter les échanges entre les producteurs et les télédiffuseurs, faciliter aussi les échanges entre le Canada puis les entités qui sont réglementées dans d’autres pays ou qui ont leur siège social dans d’autres pays mais qui viennent faire affaires ici, pour peut‑être nous aider à augmenter notre pouvoir de négociation avec eux quand vient le temps de négocier avec eux sur les échanges de contenu justement et tous ces trucs‑là. Oui.

470 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Alors, merci beaucoup d’avoir partagé vos soumissions avec nous et pour avoir répondu à nos questions.

471 Je peux vous céder la parole si vous avez des mots finaux à partager avec nous. Merci.

472 M. BRASSARD‑BÉDARD : Oui, très rapidement, là.

473 Je pense que le rôle de la télévision jeunesse est plus important que jamais, et une télévision éducative, ce n’est pas juste des émissions pour enfants, comme on pourrait le croire. L’information aussi, c’est éducatif, surtout aujourd’hui dans l’ère de la désinformation, et c’est pour ça que chez nous à TFO, on croit en l’information puis on croit en l’information à titre éducatif aussi.

474 Donc, je pense que c’est important pour le CRTC de se poser des questions en ce moment sur le contenu canadien. Puis merci de nous donner la chance, en fait, de s’exprimer là‑dessus, parce que je pense que c’est important, puis on est rendu à une croisée des chemins en ce moment où même pour les télédiffuseurs publics financés par les états, ça devient financièrement difficile de continuer à réussir à atteindre notre mandat. Donc, merci de nous avoir entendus.

475 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci à vous.

476 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci.

477 I will now ask Reelworld Screen Institute to come to the presentation table.

‑‑‑ Pause

478 THE SECRETARY: Please introduce yourself when you are ready and you may begin.

Présentation

479 MS. WILLIAMS: Hi there. My name is Tonya Williams. Thank you so much for inviting me to be here today. I’m the Executive Director of Reelworld Screen Institute. I’m also the founder.

480 Firstly, I would like to state that Reelworld supports the Indigenous Screen Office’s recommendation on the importance of ensuring a clear distinction between Canadian content and Indigenous content.

481 For over 25 years, Reelworld has been providing opportunities for Canadian Black, Indigenous, Asian, South Asian, and people of colour through our annual film festival, our summit, our year‑round training programs and hiring database. At our film festival we only screen Canadian films. We provide a space where these creators can belong, be nurtured and gain access to Canada’s screen industries.

482 Reelworld supports the recommended changes to create a 15‑point system and agrees with the 9‑point threshold, hoping that producers will not just aim for the minimum. We would love to see additional points for using Canadian writers. Choosing between the director or the writer often leaves the writer out of the picture. They are often the group that is excluded as producers navigate the point system.

483 Our content must appeal to Canadian audiences and also sell internationally to be successful. Key to that is finding ways to attract audiences to seek out Canadian content, but often, audiences do not know what content is Canadian. I suggest an additional point for content that clearly shows it is based in Canada, where the audience can easily, through image and words, see that the setting is Canadian. We should also incentivize international productions shooting in Canada to do the same.

484 To compete on the world stage, we must create a star system here in Canada. Additional points should be given to productions featuring Canadian talent in starring roles. But that is only possible if these actors are nationally and internationally recognizable. It is impossible to attract private investment with actors the audience does not recognize.

485 Recent high‑profile projects like Clement Virgo’s Netflix series The Madness cast American Black actor Coleman Domingo. The CBC series The Porter hired British Black actor Aml Ameen and U.S. actress Alfre Woodard to attract interest. The series Departure attached British South Asian actress Archie Panjabi to draw audiences. If we want Canadian content to thrive globally, we must invest in building a robust star system here at home, much like Quebec has done so successfully.

486 One effective way to strengthen Canada’s star system is by allowing funding for more daytime and nighttime talk shows dedicated to promoting Canadian actors and projects, just as the U.S., U.K., Australia, France, and other leading countries do. These platforms provide critical visibility for talent, helping them gain recognition, and creating the momentum necessary for their success in Canada and beyond.

487 But building a star system requires more than just awarding points for Canadian lead actors. It means establishing an ecosystem of support through talk shows, magazine covers, billboards, agents, managers, publicists, brand partnerships, advertising agencies, a national market fund, all working together to help Canadian talent, particularly from Black, Indigenous, and racialized communities become household names.

488 A long‑term commitment to nurturing and promoting these voices is essential in strengthening Canada’s cultural identity, and giving our talent the chance to shine, very much as Pierre Karl Péladeau did for Quebec. We further recommend that the Commission maintain its PNI requirements and expand their application to online undertakings, and include talk shows focussed on Canadian actors, talent, and projects as part of PNI.

489 We support the Commission’s preliminary position that both traditional and online undertakings should have Canadian programming expenditure obligations, and we recommend that at least 30 percent of CPE be allocated to Black and racialized creators, following the CBC’s precedent. We also need a paid Black and racialized advisory committee with real influence. This committee would ensure lived experience and cultural expertise guiding policy, embed racial equity at every level, and help us avoid the blind spots that have held us back for so long.

490 Lastly, I was pleased to see that showrunner was added to the points, but we must define what a showrunner is. We need to make sure we don’t create a loophole where the title is only used for producers, hindering Canadian writers for this role. Canada’s strength is, and always has been, its diversity.

491 The system we build today must not only reflect who we are, but who we aspire to become. This is our opportunity to create a fair, sustainable, and truly inclusive broadcasting system. And let’s make sure every voice is heard and every story has a place.

492 Thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

493 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to Reelworld for your submissions. Thank you for joining us here today.

494 I will turn things over to my colleague, Commission Paquette, to start with the questions. Thank you.

495 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hi, Ms. Williams.

496 MS. WILLIAMS: Hello.

497 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you for your participation. I have many questions on your intervention, but before, I wanted to have your feedback on what has been done in the recent years to support diversity in our regulatory framework. As an example, some dedicated funds have been created. We launched some channels like Natyf TV or Uvagut TV. We imposed additional conditions on the CBC when we renewed.

498 So, first of all, are these new measures giving the expected results, from your point of view, from what you see in the field? And should I understand that it’s not enough and we should bring more support to the equity‑deserving groups?

499 MS. WILLIAMS: That’s so great that you asked that. First of all, no one’s going to say, ‘Oh, it’s enough’ ‑‑

‑‑‑ Rires

500 MS. WILLIAMS:  ‑‑ to anything you guys present. But I do want to say it’s been a great first step, considering that for more than 50 years there has been really nothing. And what you have put in place has been a good first step, and you certain even see that by the Canadian Screen Awards last year. Bria Mack winning a Canadian Screen Award ‑‑ this is a brand new producer, a new piece of content that just ends up now winning an award. I have seen these things that you’ve put in place have increased content.

501 People who have never been funded before have gotten funded, but the thing you will hear over and over is, ‘Everything is oversubscribed.’ The minute those funds go up, they’re literally gone within a day. So, more funds are needed.

502 You know, when we define what it is when we think about diversity, just think that pretty much, I would say, 90 percent of the population is diversity in some capacity, and when we think of funding, we always think of, ‘Oh, let’s make it 30 percent of the funding.’ So, you have the largest group of population that is under this group of ‘diversity’ taking the smallest amount of the funds that you are presenting in the whole.

503 So, I think at some point we need to really take a look at that and make it more equitable.

504 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. I was kind of suspecting that you wouldn’t say that ‑‑

505 MS. WILLIAMS: No, we want less ‑‑

506 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ it was enough.

507 MS. WILLIAMS:  ‑‑ money and less ...

‑‑‑ Rires

508 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Exactly. I understand from your proposal that you suggest that our support should contribute to be true CPE expenditure. Like, you propose a 50 percent CPE credit for programming created by Black, Asian, South Asian ‑‑ is that the priority you think such a CPE credit ‑‑

509 MS. WILLIAMS: Was that in the original ‑‑

510 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes.

511 MS. WILLIAMS:  ‑‑ intervention? And was it 50 percent ‑‑ say that part again to me?

512 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: You propose a 50 percent CPE credit for programming created by Black, Asian, South Asian, and people of colour?

513 MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah. This is probably the minimum I’m always looking at. Reelworld and my drive is to have as many people in Canada work on Canadian content, and to drive as much of the funding from the top that you bring it us from the top, and we filter that down into all different areas within the industry in Canada. When I say 50 percent, maybe 51 percent ownership. I have it here in front of me but I can’t find that exhibit. Do you know what number that one was?

514 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I don’t have the number in front of me.

515 MS. WILLIAMS: I am so sorry. Yeah, I don’t.

516 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

517 MS. WILLIAMS: I was reading and rereading before I came up, but I don’t see that part of it. So, I do apologize for that. But I definitely, for expenditure, right now you have it at the 75 percent, and I am certainly ‑‑ I am in favour of as much money as possible. If it’s a hundred percent ‑‑ as much money that we get, because it can be spent for Canadian talent on every scope of the industry, is something I would very much love to see.

518 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And how would this credit apply? At what level would it apply?

519 MS. WILLIAMS: The credit of what is Canadian content?

520 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes, CPE –

521 MS. WILLIAMS: Or the credit to be –

522 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ credit.

523 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, to have the expenditures ‑‑ that’s what you’re talking about? Is it just –

524 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes.

525 MS. WILLIAMS:  ‑‑ tax credits, or are you talking about the Canadian –

526 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: CPE ‑‑ it’s Canadian –

527 MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah.

528 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ programming

529 MS. WILLIAMS: But in –

530 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ expenditure –

531 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.

532 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ that you are proposing.

533 MS. WILLIAMS: Yeah. Well, my hope is that those funds are increased ‑‑ the funds are increased so that we can have more Canadian content, and the Canadian content needs to have more of the write‑offs of the expenditure that they are spending already.

534 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

535 MS. WILLIAMS: I think that’s what you’re –

536 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

537 MS. WILLIAMS:  ‑‑ getting at?

538 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Because there are different levels where we can support –

539 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.

540 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ and there is the level of the definition itself, ‑‑

541 MS. WILLIAMS: That’s why I wasn’t sure.

542 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ where we recognize that Canadian content should include diversity elements. There’s the level of the Canadian Program Expenditures, then the level of funding. I understand that you recommend some credit at the level of the expenditures and some funding. Do I understand that the definition itself is not so central in the kind of support that we could bring?

543 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, if I’m looking at all three that you just said, I’m definitely for ‑‑ we’ve got to have Canadian content. So, the definition of Canadian content is very strong for me there, that we need to have our producer ‑‑ our top people ‑‑ our producer, we need our writers, we need our actors to become the stars so that we can have the Canadian content that we can sell worldwide.

544 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: M’hmm.

545 MS. WILLIAMS: If you are talking about how much you can spend on it, I believe you have a threshold of 75 percent right now. Is that what you were talking about?

546 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: The seventy  ‑‑

547 MS. WILLIAMS: The 75 percent expenditures that we have in for Canadian content. I’m trying to –

548 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I’m not sure I understand your question.

549 MS. WILLIAMS: So, I’m wondering if you were talking about the amount of expenditure that should be used for it to be considered Canadian content. That’s what I was wondering ‑‑ if that’s what you’re talking about.

550 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes, the CPE credit for programming –

551 MS. WILLIAMS: CPE, yeah?

552 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Canadian Programming Expense credit for programming is, as an example, a platform has the obligation to spend money in some programming. I understand that you propose that some additional credit should be given for an equity deserving group.

553 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, I think I said ‑‑ and definitely, the writers should be an additional credit because I don’t want there to be the choice of, do we get the director or do we get the writer, and often the writer is out. I think I’m not really understanding you. I’m sorry. I’m really sorry.

554 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: No problem.

555 You also support in your intervention the inclusion of Canadian cultural elements within the certification framework.

556 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes.

557 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Some intervenors have argued that including cultural elements is too subjective, given the diversity of the makeup of our country. So how does Reelworld respond to this? And how do you believe that we can incorporate cultural content objectively without negating all this diversity?

558 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, we still have to make content for a larger audience ‑‑ not just the larger audience in Canada, the larger audience worldwide. When I’m talking about placing something where you know this is Toronto, where you know this is Vancouver in the same way that I watch Australian content, which is worldwide content, but I know that’s the Sydney Opera House. In the same way in Paris, I know that’s the Eiffel Tower, even though the content is global for everyone.

559 I’m more interested in us making the opportunity for our content to brand the country of Canada because that is something that will help people worldwide see our content, understand this is Canadian content. Because right now, we seem to be more of a sound stage where somebody uses us for it looks like Chicago, it looks like –

560 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Mm‑hmm.

561 MS. WILLIAMS:  ‑‑ you know, somewhere else. We also, I would love another credit to incentivize people to make sure that the content people can say, That is Toronto, that is Vancouver, that is Quebec, because that will be worldwide branding for us.

562 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, but the examples you’re giving are relevant because you identify big cities as identifiable Canadian locations. So but other than –

563 MS. WILLIAMS: But you’re talking about the people themselves, the –

564 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Other than big cities, how can identifiable Canadian locations be defined in CanCon criteria to be objectively assessable?

565 MS. WILLIAMS: I think it’s accessible because currently a lot of the programming that is created, even for Canada, let’s say ‑‑ there’s a great show called Wild Cards right now. It’s a very successful show. Shoots in Vancouver. Not sure anybody knows it’s Vancouver when they’re watching that show.

566 In terms of diversity, and if you’re talking about Black and, you know, South Asian and Asian, I think at some point cultural things are important to have. But we mustn’t think that every single thing that has people of colour in it is a cultural thing. It’s also that we’re all Canadian. So the story’s just Canadian, and we should ‑‑ it should appeal to anybody of any colour in Canada to want to watch the story because it’s interesting, period. But then you can have a separate thing which is very cultural.

567 I think I see our industry in two very different streams. One is there is really artistic content. It’s a language thing. It’s ballet. It is music. It is something very artistic which needs a great deal of government support. I also see a very commercial side to our industry, and I think we need to support that side in a very commercial way, knowing that it must sell internationally, knowing that it must make money, that it must feed back into the coffers that is feeding it. And so I see these two things as different.

568 So I never want my conversation about commercial content to in any way take away from the other content that is ‑‑ some of you have mentioned it as, you know, programming of national interest. I think there can be commercial programming, by the way, of national interest. But I also don’t want to take away from the fact that there is programming that cannot find commercial funding anywhere. And the government supports that because long term it’s great for me to see Nureyev dance the ballet from when he was a young man because that’s just a wonderful cultural experience.

569 But because I am Black, sometimes the focus is let’s just, you know, talk about the racial aspects of this. But not only am I Black, I’m Canadian. And I’m not from any other culture but Canadian culture. So as I want to see programming that also just speaks to me as a Canadian who happens to be Black; whereas, yes, my parents are Jamaican, but that does not mean I’m seeking out Jamaican content because it might not speak to me in that certain way. I think there’s an audience that also wants to get away from that. I’m more interested in like a good detective whodunit than I am seeking out Black content specifically.

570 But there are audiences that are seeking out Black content specifically, but I think we need to widen, especially as we have now been going down this road of how do we expand our ‑‑ the diversity and all the aspects of diversity. Let’s not lock ourselves in that that diversity must constantly speak about the diversity for it to be relevant within any community.

571 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Very interesting. Thank you. I don’t have –

572 MS. WILLIAMS: Am I alone on that?

573 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Let’s go to Vice‑Chair Scott.

574 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much. Yeah, so I wanted to ask about how to support programming that is uneconomic or I think the question applies also to other forms of diversity in programming as well. So there are at least two proposals we have on the record. One is that within a contributor’s CPE amount you could segment it up with, you know, an envelope set aside for equity‑seeking groups or an envelope set aside for various other types of programmings. The other approach would be to apply incentives, so something in the formulation of if you make an expenditure towards Indigenous programming, you get 1.5 times the credit, so kind of that multiplier formulation of incentives.

575 Do you have thoughts on the relative merits of those two? And especially whether or not you would think, given your experience in the system, would that multiplier work? How high a multiplier would we need to see for it to actually change behaviour? Or is the more prescriptive kind of envelope‑based system –

576 MS. WILLIAMS: These are good questions. I don’t know if I have the answer to how high it would need to be to ‑‑ I mean, we would have to try different things.

577 I am a believer, though, that there are certain pieces of content that the government needs to really help and support in many ways. But I’m a big believer in incentivizing to private investors. I think that’s a piece that we need to explore more in Canada, especially for people of colour. How do we get Bay Street and investors in Bay Street to look at our industry in a way that could actually make money, that could actually want them to invest in ‑‑ we can’t just all be leaning into government funding. I know people hate me for that, but I think it’s also important that the government funding help those companies that are trying to get private investors. How do we attract them to want to invest in whatever content it is that we’re trying to make?

578 This is why the star system ‑‑ it still comes back to the star system. For me, on one hand there was content; there are directors; there are producers; there are writers over here. And then there’s this bridge, I feel, where there’s the regular audience. We need them. They are the people that generate everything for the industry. The actors and the performers are the people who lead that bridge. They connect that bridge. Regular audience members don’t need to or care who the director or the writer or the producers were of that content. That shouldn’t be their concern. They see what they see on screen. They get excited about the faces they see on screen. And we need to titillate them with those faces. We need them hungry for those faces so that those actors can go from another project to another project. We want international productions to hire our actors to be in their international productions. That helps us in the long run.

579 So all the other things that we’re talking about, which are important, are only really important if people are going to watch the content. So you can say, Do we add more money here? Do we add more points there? Do we do this over here? But if the end result is that we’re not really focused on how do we get Canadian audiences to really get excited about the Canadian stars and the content they’re watching, I don’t know how the other stuff works.

580 And when you talked earlier, some of you, about partnerships, partnerships are not just other production companies, by the way. Partnerships are the advertising agencies. It’s not up to producers necessarily to know how to market their content. It would be great if they did, but some of them don’t have that expertise. How do we marry advertising companies who know how to sell cars, who know how to sell, you know, Coca‑Cola, who know how to sell ‑‑ how do we also get them to put strategy plans together to make the content that we want sold? How do we help distributors and sales agents? All that infrastructure needs to be looked at as well. It’s not just on one. It’s not just the producer that can come up with all these ideas.

581 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you so much.

582 We will go to Commissioner Naidoo for the final question or questions.

583 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. Thank you so much for being here. I wanted to just ask you a little bit more about the point for content that clearly shows it’s based in Canada that you had mentioned in your intervention. During our engagement sessions across the country, we met with various audiences across the country, and we heard from a lot of people who felt that the Canadianness or the cultural aspect of Canada is very difficult to define and can be very subjective. So how do you define something as clearly being Canadian? And also what’s to guard against tokenism if somebody were to just put ‑‑ you mentioned images of Canada, I mean, clearly, low‑hanging fruit ‑‑ put a shot in of the CN Tower or something like that. How do we guard against that?

584 MS. WILLIAMS: You know, don’t put down the low‑hanging fruit. It’s very effective. I see Big Ben in a series I’m watching; I know I’m in London. I sometimes think we overthink these things.

585 I don’t know why we think we don’t have a Canadian identity. Maybe when these conversations were having, it was before what has been happening in the last few months. You see our Canadian identity. We’re pushing against what people are saying about us. We may have had ‑‑ we might not have been as strong about it before because nobody was threatening us, but the minute we’re threatened, you see Canadian identity come together. You see the culture come together. You see an audience that doesn’t even want to buy things on the shelf that are American‑made anymore.

586 We have a very strong Canadian identity. The identity is that we’re diverse. The identity is that when you open a meeting, you talked about the land that we are on from Indigenous people. I don’t see that when I’m in other communities. We are much more open about the trans community, the LGBTQ. We are more welcoming in our country. This is a very Canadian thing. And I think we don’t sometimes value that, and that could be in our content. In fact, I would go so far to say the more we interject our Canadianness in our content, the more we help the rest of the world.

587 When I was growing up, the only people that looked like me on TV were American. They were African American. My culture as a Canadian was very different. But this is the only thing I saw. So and I can tell you when I first went to Los Angeles in 1987, the one thing I was asked all the time is, Where are you from? They knew instinctively I was not African American.

588 So it may not be something that we can put into words right now and say here is the definition of Canadian, but other people see that we are different, that the way we talk to each other is different, and the way we embrace differences is different. And we want to incorporate that too.

589 I understand what some producers might think. They don’t want to be like, Oh, there’s a maple leaf here in a thing ‑‑ you know, you don’t have to do those kinds of things. It’s just in the background. It doesn’t take away from any of the content I see worldwide that I watch now, you know? It’s a plus.

590 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. Thank you for that. And what about productions where they don’t want Canada to look like Canada? People are coming here to maybe make a film that looks like it’s in New York or it’s in somewhere else, but –

591 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, they can, but that’s why I put in if there was some incentive that we could give them, if there was an incentive, they would make it Canada. You know, if there’s no incentive for them, I don’t think so. But how many times have you seen a movie, and you know it’s international funds, but it’s Scotland, it’s Ireland, it’s these other places. I believe there are incentives in place to make that happen. I think we just ‑‑ we don’t fight for it at all. We don’t. We just like, Yeah, come on in. Use us as your sound stage. I just think it would be nice if there were some sort of incentive to make that happen.

592 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you.

593 You also indicated both in your presentation and in your written documents that you were pleased to see that showrunner was added to the point system. But you had mentioned that we must define showrunner. You don’t want it to be a back door for people.

594 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, do you guys, do any of you know what a showrunner is?

595 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Well, I’m going to turn that on you, yeah, and ask you. That was my question –

596 MS. WILLIAMS: Because it’s not a credit.

597 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yeah.

598 MS. WILLIAMS: It’s not a credit that rolls at the end. A showrunner is kind of ‑‑ it’s really who delivers this show. Someone has to be the responsible person that gets all the crap when the show’s not delivered. Sometimes that is a producer, an executive producer if it’s a series. Sometimes it’s a writer, the head writer who is the showrunner.

599 I’m saying that by not defining what it is, we leave that loophole to push the writer out again. Writers have a really tough time in Canada because when you’re going through the point system, that’s often the point that might not get picked up.

600 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So how would you define showrunner? Is that unfair to put you on the spot like that as a –

601 MS. WILLIAMS: I don’t want to define it, but I do want it defined. So I think that the conversation with other writers, with other producers, with CMPA, with the Writers Guild I think to come together and come up with what that is, because maybe it’s a shared thing.

602 Here’s just an example people always hate because I just say my stuff, and it’s ‑‑ I don’t always follow what the group is. If you’re trying to do your 15 points, your nine points, and one of your points is already a producer, then maybe not also have the point of a producer on your showrunner so that you have two. At some point, the writer. But if your writer’s already on the point, then maybe you do use the showrunner. So it really depends.

603 And as I said, it depends on the show. The show itself, sometimes the head writer is the one delivering everything, and sometimes it’s your executive producer‑producer delivering everything. So without knowing that, I just think we need to be careful that we might just put that word in there thinking, Oh, this is a really good thing, except what is it?

604 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I just was hearing from one of our staff members that the Writers Guild has come out with a definition on showrunner that –

605 MS. WILLIAMS: I’m sure CMPA will have their definition too.

606 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yeah, yeah. I’m wondering if, you know, you would want to put it in an RFI any thoughts on what you think the definition should include or anything like that?

607 MS. WILLIAMS: I don’t want to just make it ‑‑ because once again, it really depends on the show and who exactly is delivering that show. There’s not one person that, oh, you’re there, you’re the showrunner, when another person’s actually delivering that show. Who is it that’s actually delivering it?

608 I just say because you added it in there, which I think is wonderful, but there’s no caveat or anything with it. So having, what, the Writers Guild maybe looking at that, I haven’t see that one, to see what the CMPA ‑‑ I think more discussion from other people also about what they think. But I know it’s never one title necessarily that just delivers that.

609 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

610 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. And perhaps staff will follow up in terms of a request for information to see if that is a definition that you agree with, the one that the Writers Guild has put out.

611 We will turn things back over to you for any final thoughts, anything we haven’t covered, any key message you’d like to leave us with.

612 MS. WILLIAMS: Well, you guys are covering a lot. You have many, many weeks in front of you listening to lots of different voices. I don’t envy you because a lot of it is going to sometimes sound contradictory, and you have to find your way through that contradiction.

613 But I do want to reinforce that having a star system is not just a feel good, patting yourself on the back, saying you’re all hurray; it’s a marketing tool. You’ve talked a lot about discoverability. There is no other better way for discoverability than to really work towards the actors being recognizable. An audience needs to know who the actors are. They will follow those actors from show to show to show if you can build a faithful fan base. And that can’t be just the responsibility of just the producer. It’s not just on the broadcaster. It needs to be a collective of many pieces, as it is in all the other countries that I mentioned, coming together and working towards this. This is the way you make content. This is the way you sell content. So if you want that audience, you want them to know where it is and what it is and to watch it so that you can make money from these things, because that is what we’re trying to do as well, then it has to be taken seriously and implemented in some way. Thank you.

614 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

615 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now hear the next participant. I would ask John Schoales to come to the presentation table. When you are ready, you may begin. The button is right there, the grey button, yes. Yeah.

Présentation

616 MR. SCHOALES: Okay, thank you.

617 So my name is John Schoales. I am an adjunct professor and visiting researcher at Toronto Metropolitan University. I also worked for 25 years in Canadian industry development policy at the federal and provincial levels, with a most recent 15‑year focus on creative industry development. I have published a number of journal articles on this topic, and my work has been cited in dozens of countries around the world.

618 The current approach to Canadian programming contributes to underrepresentation of racialized people in the audiovisual industry in Canada. It also contributes to underperformance of the industry, which restricts opportunities for creators as well as cultural and economic benefits for Canada.

619 People who live and work in Canada who are not citizens or permanent residents are much more likely to be racialized. These people are an important source of talent and key contributors to Canada’s future population growth and its cultural and economic development. Canada has always been a place that grows by attracting people from around the world. Almost all of Canada’s population growth is due to immigration, and this will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. Cultural industries, more than any other industries, become successful by attracting people to places where creativity and new ideas flourish. Canada has the unique potential to be a global centre of creativity and success in the audiovisual industries.

620 A binary distinction between Canadian content and non‑Canadian content and the exclusion of people who are not yet citizens or permanent residents undermines the growth and success of the audiovisual industry. There is virtually no effort to attract talented people in the audiovisual industry or other creative industries in Canada or to remove barriers that prevent them from pursuing their careers in Canada.

621 Xenophobia is commonly defined as a suspicion of anything that is interpreted as being foreign or a threat to one’s national identity. Our system seems to foster this perspective, which extends to global companies as well. They are often viewed with suspicion and their contributions are often only valued to the extent that they contribute to this exclusionary approach. Collaboration with global companies provides much greater opportunities than this.

622 A focus on Canadian nationality also conflicts with the self‑identity of creators in Canada who want to collaborate with people and tell stories that extend beyond Canada’s borders, including Indigenous people and diasporic communities.

623 Programs that are intended to address inequities by providing funds to excluded groups do not come close to overcoming these systemic and cultural biases. The Canadian Human Rights Commission states that

“Systemic racism dehumanizes us all. Whether consciously or unconsciously, a failure to champion anti‑racism makes one complicit in the oppression of those harmed by racial injustice. Achieving a truly equitable society will require the dismantling of the systems that inherently place a greater value on some identities than others .... Addressing systemic racism requires awareness and, more importantly, action at every level ‑‑ individual, institutional, and structural.”

624 So thank you. I’m happy to take any questions.

625 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Professor Schoales. Thank you for being here and engaging in the process. I will turn things over to my colleague Commissioner Naidoo to lead the questioning for the Commission. Thank you.

626 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for being here.

627 In your intervention, you say racialized people are underrepresented in the broadcasting industry, and you cite systemic and cultural bias. What concrete changes, in your view, could the CRTC make to the definition of Canadian content or perhaps what other regulatory tools do you think that we should be using that could help increase representation?

628 MR. SCHOALES: Right. So, I have a long answer to that, and I intend to include it in my final written submission, but I thought it would be helpful to present some of that here today, if you don’t mind. It would be about 10 minutes. But I think it’s an important question. I’d like to get any additional questions you have on this as well that might be helpful for my final intervention, if that’s okay.

629 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: We are tight for time, so are you saying you’re going to take 10 minutes for the answer?

630 MR. SCHOALES: Yeah.

631 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I don’t know ‑‑

632 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, why don’t you run through it quickly. I think this is also something that you could submit as part of your final reply, but we’ll give you an opportunity to walk through it quickly.

633 MR. SCHOALES: Okay.

634 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you.

635 MR. SCHOALES: The overwhelming focus on funding for Canadian citizens and permanent residents results in little attention being paid to the potential contributions of newcomers to Canada, and the biases and exclusions that go along with this perhaps inadvertent omission, but it also results in a lack of attention to other areas that are important to the development and growth of the industry, which could create more and better opportunities for everyone. Vital areas that receive little if any attention in the audiovisual and other creative industries in Canada include training and entrepreneurship, private sector investment and mutually beneficial collaboration with global companies.

636 Some of these have already been mentioned by other interveners. Several interveners have talked about the lack of training and entrepreneurship. Tonya just mentioned private sector investment.

637 Then there’s global companies, which I think is of primary interest to you, so I think I’m going to focus primarily on that.

638 I’ll just say that private sector investment approaches, such as angel investment, crowdfunding and corporate venture capital, were all pioneered in the arts. Angel investment originated in the financing of theatre productions. Crowdfunding also originated and gained wide usage in the creative industries. Corporate venture capital, where a major corporation participates in –

639 THE SECRETARY: I’m sorry. The interpreters cannot follow because you’re talking very fast. I think it’s because you want to put it in the time that you have, but if you could slow down your pace.

640 MR. SCHOALES: Slow down a bit. Sure.

641 THE SECRETARY: Yes.

642 MR. SCHOALES: Corporate venture capital, where a major corporation participates in a project pitched by an external party that aligns with its corporate goals, gained widespread use in the technology industry in the late‑20th century. While this model had long been standard practice in the audiovisual industries, ever since film studios started contracting out conceptualization, development and production to independent workers decades earlier. These approaches have been used extensively for growth and development of other industries in Canada, but there are virtually no programs to apply these approaches to the creative industries where they began.

643 Several submissions that I mentioned to this proceeding note that Canadian creators in the film and television industry struggle to access training and develop career pathways. Training in high‑value roles is central to the development of higher‑value activity in Canada. High‑quality training institutions can also play an important role in attracting aspiring talent to Canada and attracting production investment from global companies.

644 I’m going to talk a little bit about the role of global companies, and I will specifically refer to your question as well.

645 An approach that equates culture with nationality reinforces a tendency to see global companies as invaders rather than as potential collaborators. In most industries, Canada left behind its isolationist tendencies and concerns about being a branch‑plant economy decades ago to recognize that value chains are global and that the important goal is to maximize Canada’s role in high‑value functions.

646 Canada now puts significant effort into international collaboration, particularly in other high‑human capital industries, due to their potential, to create high‑quality professional development and job opportunities for Canadian workers, collaboration opportunities for Canadian companies, and to establish world‑class production and distribution systems in Canada. We’ve seen the benefits of collaboration when it comes to Canada as a place to shoot, but have not extended this collaborative approach when it comes to Canada as a place to create.

647 Irene Berkowitz’s submission states that it’s time to move up the value chain. That’s, in a sense, what I’m proposing.

648 Evidence suggests that restrictive policies tend to reduce investment while incentive programs tend to lead to higher levels of investment in local content. The Department of Canadian Heritage appears to agree. In defining Canadian programs, the Commission has been directed to consider incentive and outcome‑based tools and to minimize regulator burden in establishing a flexible and adaptable regulatory framework.

649 Numerous submissions indicate that global companies are quite willing to play a role in the development of successful creative production and talent, and to collaborate with other members of the production ecosystem in Canada, including helping to implement technology and helping to develop the careers and businesses of people from underrepresented groups

650 Local companies and workers can also benefit from working with international collaborators, for example, the local directors who are hired by global companies for episodic television.

651 High‑budget local production is increasingly part of global companies’ production strategies. Netflix’s submission states that they “want to engage Canadian creative workers whose skills and talent enrich productions in meaningful ways”, and have provided funding for the training and development of creators, including screenwriters, directors and producers from underrepresented groups.

652 Paramount’s submission states that it wants to utilize its resources and expertise in content production, including international collaboration, training, using Canadians in creative positions, financing, distribution and promotion.

653 IATSE also highlights the importance of contributions to training.

654 Setting an arbitrary line between Canadian and not Canadian, and forcing companies to invest in the former, even if it makes no sense to do so in terms of market demand, will not likely result in growing investment, significant industry development, substantially increased opportunities for creators, or very many successful products. It would be much more beneficial to see creators in Canada play increasingly important roles in the development of highly impactful audiovisual productions. Flexibility in key creative functions and intellectual property ownership allows for an increase in participation in these roles that is mutually beneficial to everyone, including local workers and businesses, potential immigrants, global companies and the Canadian public.

655 This chart, if everyone can see it or if you have it on your desk, shows the average value‑added per job or productivity in the cultural industries in Canada. It includes comparisons with California in the audiovisual industries. Productivity is closely related to the incomes of workers in an industry.

656 The low ranking of film and video among Canadian cultural industries reflects a lack of market success of Canadian programming, as well as the production services tax credit, focus on low‑value service functions rather than on high‑value creative functions.

657 The approach I’m describing is essentially about shifting away from a dual focus on either people’s citizenship status, which is often referred to as domestic production, or on lower‑value service functions, often referred to as foreign, to a more unified focus on higher‑value roles by people and businesses resident in Canada.

658 The differences between the red Canadian bars and the blue California bars show there’s a lot of room for growth. Success in the audiovisual industries means a tremendous number of creative opportunities, high‑value production and potential for high incomes.

659 Success is also about opportunities to collaborate with the best in the world. A region’s unique and evolving character, reflected in its creative products such as its music, its food and its film and television programs, is often the product of local influences combined with new ideas that creative people bring to the region.

660 Hollywood is no different. With very similar populations, California and Canada have talent pools of similar size. I took a look at the 30 highest‑grossing films in North America from last year to see whether people from California were in the key creative roles that are used in our points system. Using this definition, do you know how many of them would have scored six out of 10 as California content? Anybody want to take a guess? It’s none. Only around 10 percent to 15 percent of key creative roles were held by people from California. Around half the films wouldn’t even qualify as American content. Success in these industries is about attracting talented people from all over the world, not about regulations that help keep people out.

661 Lisa Macklem’s submission states:

“Canada’s culture is vibrant and multifaceted and the very regulations established to help it flourish should not be stunting its growth instead.” (As read)

662 This final slide gives some detail to what I’m suggesting.

663 A larger, more diverse and more culturally impactful audiovisual industry in Canada would benefit creators, companies and the Canadian public. The first ones I indicate here are industry‑wide targets.

664 Increasing productivity by 100 percent would mean more successful products, higher‑value functions being performed in Canada, and greater opportunities and higher incomes for creators. This would put the film and television industry near the top of the previous chart instead of near the bottom. Related goals that are likely quite achievable are a 200 percent increase in production, exports and opportunities for underrepresented groups and immigrants.

665 Flexibility in how companies achieve these targets helps ensure creative opportunities develop in mutually beneficial ways, generating continued momentum in the development and growth of the industry.

666 The definition of key roles; if we’re defining key roles and we want people to put people in these roles, it should reflect both the most valuable functions in the industry and our ability to produce or attract people most qualified to fill these roles.

667 Examples of targets at the company level could be Canadian residents holding 15 percent of the positions in each key creative role and 50 percent of the value of production being managed by people and businesses resident in Canada. Basing eligibility on residency rather than citizenship status and working to grow the industry by attracting both creative individuals and the management of high‑value production activity to Canada are both important components of growth.

668 Flexibility means there would be options for companies on how they would achieve company‑specific targets. Adaptability means targets can increase over time as the industry develops and grows. It’s not as important where the targets start. Some analysis of current activity would need to be done to determine baseline metrics. What we would want to see is growth over time that contributes to meeting industry‑wide outcomes.

669 Success would require collaboration with other areas of government, not just the CRTC as not all of these things are within your scope. It would require collaboration with other areas of government, industry and other stakeholders, many of whom are participating in this and other CRTC consultations.

670 One final thing I’d just like to mention on this, the Canada Media Fund’s “New Futures for Canadian Content” report indicated that 80 percent of people outside the industry, and 33 percent of people inside the industry, don’t know how Canadian programming is defined. Many of these people might say, “You mean we’re not trying to attract talented immigrants in these industries, or train people, or develop investment, or working with global companies to create high skill opportunities? I just assumed that’s what we were doing. Why aren’t we doing that?”

671 I don’t think there’s a good reason. There might be some not very good reasons, but I don’t think there’s a good reason.

672 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

673 I’m going to just move on. We don’t have a lot of time. I’m going to try to get in a few questions on hopefully things that you can flesh out a little bit.

674 How would your suggestion to change the definition of Canadian programming by focusing on the product be applied in a practical sense? For example, which objective criterion do you think we should be using to measure this in our framework?

675 MR. SCHOALES: Currently, you measure it based on people in key creative positions, so it could continue to be measured in that way, just not based on citizenship or permanent residency, but by residency in Canada, residency for income tax purposes, for example. That would need to be ‑‑ I mean that’s how it could be done. That would allow a lot more people, particularly racialized people, to qualify, a lot more collaboration, but to make that work fully we would need to put more effort into actually attracting people to Canada in these industries.

676 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

677 I want to move on to talent, because I know that you outlined that in your intervention. You mentioned in that intervention that we should be developing talent in Canada, but to be honest, as part of this hearing I’m sure you’ve heard people, you’ve read some of the things that have been submitted. Some members of the production industry actually say that Canada is leading in the production talent pool, so I’m wondering what your understanding is of the current situation, whether you agree with that. Do you have any suggestions on how the CRTC should help to foster the development of greater and more‑diverse talent, anything that you can offer?

678 MR. SCHOALES: Sure. We do produce some talent and we put some effort into that. A lot of the people who become successful leave Canada, so a lot of our talented people are working in Hollywood. They could be directors. They could be writers. They could be actors. We do produce some talent. I wouldn’t say we produce more talent than anyone else in the world, but we do lose a lot of talent and we don’t put effort into attracting talent. That’s a fundamental difference between us and Hollywood is that they develop talent, they also attract talent. We don’t attract talent and we lose talent, so we need to ‑‑ if we want to develop a successful industry, we need to ‑‑ that would benefit retaining people, in order to do that we need to do several things, and talent is one of them. Training is one of them. Entrepreneurship, you know, mentorship, all those types of things are –

679 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: It sounds like talent retention, too.

680 MR. SCHOALES: Talent retention too. I think, you know, to do that we need to have a competitive industry where people want to stay because this is where they can be successful.

681 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you very much for answering my questions. That’s all I have.

682 Back to you, Madam Chair.

683 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much.

684 I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott.

685 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

686 Just a quick question for me. I’m looking at your proposed targets for companies, the 15 percent and the 50 percent. I’m just wondering if you have thoughts on whether those should be scalable in the sense that those who exceed those targets should receive more credit than those who barely meet those targets. There’s a bit of a trade‑off to consider in terms of regulatory simplicity versus creating incentives that might drive behaviour further, if you have thoughts on that.

687 MR. SCHOALES: Ideally, I think this would be an adaptable and flexible system where you would hopefully move those targets up over time and you would want people to be exceeding them. I think it would probably be helpful to have an incentive for people to exceed them. As the average increases, you can move up the target. That way you’ll see the growth of the industry and the inclusion of more people, residents of Canada, working in key positions and having more people seeing Canada as a place where they can be successful, whether it’s people staying here, whether it’s people coming from other places to pursue their careers here.

688 Does that answer your question?

689 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yes.

690 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

691 I think we’ve covered a lot of ground. We’ll turn things back over to you for any concluding thoughts.

692 MR. SCHOALES: Okay. Thank you.

693 The creation of a globally competitive industry requires access to a global talent pool, as well as collaboration across government and among industry players, including global companies. A parochial approach that excludes foreigners and that seeks to tell people what their stories should be about will almost certainly continue to struggle with high public costs, only the occasional modest success story, underrepresentation of racialized creators, and be characterized by conflict over limited resources rather than by collaboration, growth, increasingly impactful cultural products, higher incomes for creators, and the development and retention of businesses and talent in Canada.

694 The term “Canadian programming” may already introduce bias, because it associates identity with nationality. To repeat the words of the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

“Achieving a truly equitable society will require the dismantling of the systems that inherently place a greater value on some identities than others....Addressing systemic racism requires awareness and, more importantly, action at every level ‑‑ individual, institutional, and structural.”

695 Some might interpret the word “Canadian” to reflect the values of diversity and inclusion, and Canada as a welcoming place. This conflicts with the exclusion of people who aspire to pursue their creative career in Canada, but are not yet citizens or permanent residents, or with the perception that indigenous identity is subsumed within Canadian identity. The interpretation of the word “Canadian” as an inclusive ideal must be earned and be backed up by action that truly fosters what we hope the word “Canadian” represents.

696 Thank you.

697 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your submissions and your participation today

698 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. This concludes the hearing for today. We will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.

‑‑‑ L’audience est ajournée à 14 h 06 pour reprendre le jeudi 15 mai 2025 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Ada DeGeer-Simpson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton