Transcription, Audience du 15 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

704 Deaf Wireless Canada Committee

817 DHH Coalition (Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf and Ontario Association of the Deaf)

863 Shaw Rocket Fund

991 Canadian Film Centre, National Screen Institute & L'institut national de l’image et du son

1082 Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations

1175 Accessible Media Inc.

1266 BIPOC TV & Film

1333 The Ontario Educational Communications Authority

1413 Observatoire du documentaire

1494 Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated

Engagements

859 Engagement

Transcription

Gatineau (Québec)
15 mai 2025
Ouverture de l'audience à 9 h 06

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ l’audience débute le jeudi 15 mai 2025 à 9 h 06

699 THE SECRETARY: Good morning, everyone. Madam Chair, we can begin.

700 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Bon matin, tout le monde, et bienvenue à la deuxième journée de notre audience publique sur le contenu Canadien.

701 Welcome, everybody. I would like to take a moment to say hello and welcome to our first guests, the Deaf Wireless Canada Committee, and I will turn things back over to the hearing secretary to get us started.

702 Thank you.

703 THE SECRETARY: We will start with the presentation from the Deaf Wireless Canada Committee. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

704 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): Hello. My name is Jeffrey Beatty. I’m the Chairperson of Deaf Wireless Canada Committee.

705 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): Good morning. My name is Jessica Sergeant. I’m a consultant for the Committee.

706 MR. MALKOWSKI (interpreted): Good morning and bonjour. I’m Gary Malkowski. I’m a consultant.

707 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): Commissioners, we thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and contribute meaningfully to the Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2024‑288 proceeding. We welcome the chance to participate in this essential broadcasting proceeding and share our perspective on its implications and opportunities for Canada’s broadcasting future that includes Canada’s sign languages and deaf, dead‑blind and hard‑of‑hearing, or DBHH communities.

708 When defining what qualifies as a “Canadian program”, the Commission must apply an accessibility lens that reflects Canada’s linguistic and cultural diversity. This would include the lived experiences of people who are deaf, deaf‑blind and hard of hearing. Sign languages are the natural languages of deaf Canadians.

709 It is crucial that the Commission demonstrate leadership by upholding the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by recognizing and supporting the use of sign languages across its platforms. Additionally, since the UN observes and recognizes the UN International Day of Sign Languages annually on September 23rd, the Commission should follow suit. And as you know, the Canadian government has signed and ratified the UN Convention on Persons with Disabilities and recognizes the International Day of Sign Language

710 MR. MALKOWSKI (interpreted): The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Supreme Court of Canada Eldrige decision and also the Federal Court of Canada’s on the Canadian Association of the Deaf affirmed the decision, and the Canada Human Rights Code recognizes the accommodation of deaf persons and the use of sign languages.

711 And if you see the articles in the Accessible Canada Act, it recognizes both spoken and signed languages as the expressive cultural lives of deaf, deaf‑blind and hard‑of‑hearing Canadians to provide access to communication and recognize that the cultural participation and celebrate the lives of deaf Canadians.

712 And I’ll turn it over to Ms. Sergeant.

713 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): The CRTC’s ‑‑ according to the Accessible Canada Act, American Sign Language, ASL, Langue des signes Québécoise, LSQ, and Indigenous sign languages, ISLs, are recognized as the primary languages of deaf people in Canada. This recognition highlights the need to increase the availability of signed content across all broadcasting and digital platforms. Such action affirms these sign languages as integral components to Canada’s linguistic and cultural heritage and the federal government’s commitment to the accessibility and inclusion.

714 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): CRTC’s 2023 Policy Direction has a meaningful impact on how policies and regulations are shaped in both telecommunications and broadcasting. Its emphasis on accessibility, equity and consumer rights has strengthened the Commission’s role in removing systemic barriers. This is critical for ensuring that deaf, deaf‑blind, hard‑of‑hearing Canadians are fully included in the digital economy and broadcasting landscape, not as an afterthought, but as equal participants.

715 To achieve true equality in Canada’s broadcasting system, the Commission must prioritize authentic leadership by deaf, deaf‑blind and hard‑of‑hearing individuals. This means not only representation on screen, but also that deaf, deaf‑blind and hard‑of‑hearing creators leading content development, direction and production. Structural support through sustainable funding, mentorship, leadership development and access to decision‑making roles is essential.

716 Authentic leadership ensures that stories are told in ASL, LSQ and Indigenous sign languages grounded in their lived experiences. It also upholds the right to language access from birth, fostering early communication and cultural identity, and ensuring full civic and cultural participation in society. When deaf, deaf‑blind and hard‑of‑hearing communities lead, they shape narratives that are both authentic and empowering, and vital to a truly inclusive and diverse broadcasting system.

717 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): DWCC urges the Commission to reflect on the very term used in this proceeding, audio‑visual sector. While commonly used in regulatory and industry discourse, it inherently centres around the auditory experience and reinforces a hearing‑centric world view. This has led to a lack of sign‑language centric broadcasting framework in Canada.

718 This framing marginalizes the cultural contributions and creative leadership of deaf, deaf‑blind and hard‑of‑hearing Canadians. As a result, current media structures often fail to provide equitable opportunities for deaf, deaf‑blind and hard‑of‑hearing creators or fully accessible experiences for these audiences. The persistent absence of sign language in Canadian content continues to deny these communities full and equal access for those are deaf, deaf‑blind and hard of hearing.

719 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): The Modern Definition. As the Commission moves forward to modernize its definition of Canadian content, it is essential to move beyond outdated hearing‑centric frameworks. Modern media policy must reflect the full range of how Canadians access and engage with content, including those who use sign languages. True modernization requires inclusive language and frameworks that recognize these diverse moderns of communication as equally valid.

720 Canada’s broadcasting system must represent the full spectrum of its cultural and linguistic diversity. This means including sign languages as equal contributors to cultural expression and accessibility. The Commission has an opportunity to ensure its policies validate and reflect this diversity in a meaningful and inclusive way.

721 MR. MALKOWSKI (interpreted): In the United Kingdom, Ofcom’s TV Access Services Code mandates that broadcasters make a proportion of their programming accessible, including sign languages. Major broadcasters with larger audiences are required to meet specific quotas directly, with smaller broadcasters fulfilling their obligations through alternative signing requirements. This code equitably supports sign languages, accessibility and cultural production. Canada currently lacks a comparable mechanism.

722 And the next slide.

723 Recommendation. We recommend the Commission to set and regulate a new TV and Digital Access Code that sets clear and enforceable rules for broadcasters, online streaming service providers and wireless service providers on making a certain amount of their programmes accessible. This Code should require five percent of Canadian content to be made accessible through high‑quality ASL, LSQ and Indigenous sign languages in its original productions.

724 So it’s important to set up the Digital Access Code in the same way that Ofcom has set up their Code and regulations within the United Kingdom.

725 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): LumoTV, also known as the British Sign Language Broadcasting Trust, has been a pioneering force in inclusive media since its establishment in 2008. As the world’s only sign language‑based commissioning body, LumoTV has transformed the UK’s media landscape by funding and showcasing content created by and for deaf communities. It provides commercial broadcasters with an alternative, accessible model of programming grounded in sign language. This includes cultural authenticity and deaf‑led storytelling. LumoTV demonstrates how deaf led programming can enrich national identity and expand inclusive storytelling while maintaining high production values and audience reach.

726 Canada now has a unique opportunity to follow this global precedent by becoming the second country in the world to establish a dedicated sign language‑based commissioning body. A Canadian equivalent would support the creation of original content in ASL, LSQ and Indigenous sign languages while amplifying the voices of deaf, deaf‑blind and hard‑of‑hearing communities.

727 MR. MALKOWSKI (interpreted): Deaf Wireless Canada Committee respectfully recommends the Commission to create a sign language‑based commissioning body in Canada, making it the second of its kind in the world. This body would be tasked with overseeing the Canadian Sign Languages Broadcasting Fund, dedicated to supporting the development, production and distribution of sign language content across broadcast and digital platforms. By creating this body, Canada can foster a media landscape that authentically reflects the deaf, deaf‑blind and hard‑of‑hearing communities. It will reflect the richness of Canada’s linguistic and cultural diversity. It also would position Canada as a global leader in accessible and equitable media.

728 Deaf Wireless Canada Committee recommends the Commission to establish a Canadian Sign Language Broadcasting Fund. This is to be dedicated fund that ensures a sustained and meaningful inclusion of deaf, deaf‑blind and hard‑of‑hearing communities within Canada’s broadcasting online streaming and Internet ecosystems. This fund should specifically support the development, production and distribution of content in ASL, LSQ and indigenous sign languages, with governance and project leadership by deaf, deaf‑blind and hard of hearing creators and organizations.

729 As an equity‑based model, the fund would address long‑standing systemic barriers to access and leadership, ensuring that sign language content is not merely accessible, but recognized as central to Canada’s cultural expression. Such an investment is critical not only for dismantling systemic exclusion, but also for affirming sign languages as vibrant, living parts of Canada’s cultural fabric.

730 The CRTC feasibility study precedent. Broadcasting and Telecom Regulatory Policy CRTC 2009‑430 set a key precedent by launching a feasibility study that led to Canada’s Video Relay Service. This shows how the CRTC can act decisively to address accessibility gaps through structured policy development. DWCC highlights this precedent to support a similar approach for Broadcasting Notice CRTC 2024‑288.

731 We recommend the CRTC see to initiate and carry out a feasibility study on a sign language‑based broadcasting system in Canada. The study would assess how to build a sign language‑centric framework that supports ASL, LSQ and indigenous sign languages led by deaf, deaf‑blind and hard of hearing communities within Canada’s broadcasting and streaming sectors. We would like you to consider that model.

732 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): A call to action. Commissioners, we are at a pivotal moment to reshape Canadian content policy into a system that is truly inclusive, representative and equitable. For too long deaf, deaf‑blind and hard of hearing communities have been excluded both as audiences and creators. This systemic exclusion must end.

733 Canada has an opportunity to lead globally by embedding accessibility, linguistic recognition and deaf, deaf‑blind and hard of hearing leadership into the core of how we define and fund Canadian content. Let’s build a broadcasting system where all voices, signed and spoken, can thrive. This begins with full sign language accessibility and deaf, deaf‑blind and hard of hearing leadership. Our overall recommendations are: one, To set and regulate a CRTC TV and digital access code; two, to create a sign language‑based commissioning body in Canada; three, to establish a Canadian sign languages broadcasting fund; and, four, to initiate and carry out a feasibility study on a sign language‑based broadcasting system in Canada.

734 I want to take the opportunity to thank you all very much for giving us the time to be here today to present to you. If you indulge me, I have a quick, short video to show you.

‑‑‑ Présentation vidéo

735 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): These are the different programming that LumoTV in the United Kingdom shows. They have children’s programming, drama, entertainment, factual programs, comedies, sports, a number of different items.

736 Thank you again for the opportunity.

737 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you to the DWCC for your written submissions, as well as your presentation to us this morning.

738 I very much enjoyed the video with the garden makeover and the chef trophy. I liked how the kids were bickering at first and then ended up high‑fiving.

739 We have a few questions for you. I will start things for the panel.

740 In your presentation this morning you spoke about a dedicated fund. I’m wondering if there are other tools, in addition to a fund, that would help ensure that productions are more accessible.

741 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): With the CRTC and Ofcom, they function very similarly. Ofcom has been around for 20 years. They have partnered with LumoTV. I think it would be a good opportunity for the Commissioners to take a look at their structure and model. The CRTC could see how their model functions, how it was established, to get a sense of how it operates. We could start with a feasibility study to investigate what opportunities are there. I think it would be important for the CRTC in terms of broadcasting. We need to look at all sign languages, including indigenous sign languages, to be added to the broadcasting system.

742 MR. MALKOWSKI (interpreted): I would like to add about additional tools. If we’re talking about funding, there could be, for example, a deferred account, a national contribution fund. There are different ways, perhaps a surcharge to the broadcasters or a levy, a very small monetary amount in the same way that the U.K. has done it. They have 72 broadcasters ‑‑ now I believe there’s 68. Here in Canada, we haven’t identified how many broadcasters there are, but if the money could be pooled into a fund, perhaps different approaches or tools could be used through the feasibility study to figure out where the funds could come from, what a funding formula would be.

743 Also, when it comes to the federal government, they’ve already committed to the Canada Accessibility Act. The goal is by 2040 to have accessible standards. There are different approaches, different formulations and tools that could be used as part of this feasibility study.

744 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): I trust that the CRTC could take a broader look at the best way. We could look at various tools, but we need to start somewhere.

745 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

746 Accessibility is clearly at the heart of what you do. That came out very clearly in your written submissions, as well as your presentation this morning. In both, you refer to an accessibility lens. Could you walk us through how that would work in practice?

747 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): When I speak of an accessibility lens ‑‑ I was here in 2012, I offered a definition then ‑‑ what it means is, the decisions that are made for the deaf, deaf‑blind and hard of hearing communities, if they could be made at that level in terms of policies, guidelines and strategies, I call that an aspect of the accessibility lens. I ask that the Commissioners use that lens and consider the needs of our community in terms of developing better policy and regulations than what we have currently.

748 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): If I could just add to that?

749 Also, just to make sure that deaf, hard of hearing and deaf‑blind communities have an opportunity to inform, as a community, what our needs are because, when it comes to broadcasting, it’s an opportunity to story‑tell, and our communities aren’t represented fully there, so many people from outside our communities have stereotype misunderstandings of our community. We would like to have an opportunity to have authentic, real‑life experiences represented.

750 Most people may think that deaf people are silent and this is not true. Sign language is our primary language. Not everyone can hear, not everyone can speak, but we also have people in Canada who use sign languages. We also have some who can hear and not speak and they use sign language as well. Being part of the deaf community, using sign language is a human aspect.

751 MR. MALKOWSKI (interpreted): If I could just add to her comment?

752 The CRTC has already established a policy in terms of accessibility, but it hasn’t been enough. The Canada Accessibility Act has already outlined commitments and an accessibility action plan that has to be reviewed annually. Again, what’s missing, if you look at Ofcom and their model, they have a code that specifically outlines for television an accessible service code as well. You may want to think about a CRTC TV and digital access code that could be a clear mandate for all broadcasters, with a costing formula to be mandated to create a program for broadcasting funds that would support five percent and 10 percent for an audio description for those who are deaf and deaf‑blind. If you could establish a new code, that would help the broadcasting ecosystem learn.

753 Also, it could lead to job creation for our community to have opportunity to create content. This code would go a long way. This is a perfect opportunity, as we’re defining what is Canadian content. We don’t need to rely on American broadcasting, but show the world that we can be a leader second to the U.K.

754 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): If I could just add?

755 When it comes to the deaf, deaf‑blind and hard of hearing Canadians, we are a part of Canadian society, so cultural diversity needs to be recognized. You know, we are not in the dark and we can’t pretend that we don’t exist. We need that recognition. This will bring about more public awareness. We’re a beautiful community.

756 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for those answers. I have just a few more questions and I will turn things over to the Vice‑Chair of Broadcasting.

757 If we could touch on showrunners for a moment, you talked about having showrunners be responsible for making sure that accessibility is built into the creative process. There are other interveners, like Corus and Blue Ant, who do not support adding showrunners to the definition. I’m wondering who else could take on that role. Why that role of showrunners to play that function with respect to accessibility?

758 MR. MALKOWSKI (interpreted): The concept of a showrunner ‑‑ broadcasters have their own ways of managing the creation, the cultural content, et cetera. We just want to make sure that diversity is recognized in their roles. Our solution is that we set up our own sign language broadcasting system and we can make connections to broadcasters, work with them and their showrunners. We could partner together. That’s another solution.

759 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): I’d like to mention “Grey’s Anatomy”. That’s a show that most people are familiar with. They did have a deaf role within that show for two episodes. They had a character that was a deaf doctor. How they did it is they connected with the deaf community. That’s one way that it could be done. They engaged with us. When stories are written and developed, they typically are done by those who are not deaf and it’s not an authentic life experience. Engaging with the deaf community and developing stories leads to more authentic storylines.

760 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): Also, the more that you look into LumoTV and their connection to Ofcom, they’ve been around for 20 years, it’s very unique. In terms of production, often people will point to them and say, “Look how Lumo does it.” We have to recognize that. We did a pulse among the deaf community to talk to writers and creators. Often they mention LumoTV, so we did go ahead and do a little bit of an analysis and we would recommend that you take a look at what they have to offer. They have a good model and they problem solve. The model is there. They have the experience. They’ve been around for 20 years. This is an opportunity to take advantage of their experience.

761 MR. MALKOWSKI (interpreted): Also, just to add to your question around the showrunner and the broadcasters, in the U.K. they have 68 different broadcasters, and each of those have their own showrunners, script writers, developers and they admit that they’re not experts in the area of sign languages. Those who are within the deaf and hard of hearing communities, they tend to partner with LumoTV and work together to help them create their own TV programming, so they often partner with LumoTV as a resource around best practices and it has led to job creation. More individuals are hired within those broadcasting institutions, and this has benefited the community. Lumo is there to support broadcasters as a hub, a resource, and it benefits everyone.

762 That concept would be new to Canada. The idea of partnering and having a rich diversity to support broadcasters would be a good opportunity. Also to work together would lead to more shows, diverse shows and storylines. It also would lead to job creation for the deaf community and that’s growing our economies. That would fit the current situation here in Canada.

763 If you look at the movie “CODA” that was produced in the U.S., that led to more TV programs and the use of deaf actors and storylines.

764 Netflix is going to be releasing “Deaf President Now”. It was written by the deaf community, and more stories like this are being streamed. For example, Apple TV, it would be nice to have Canadian content. This may answer your previous question around the feasibility study. This would give us an opportunity to investigate and find more answers, but we’d like to offer up some important information.

765 Thank you.

766 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): It’s important to see what’s happened ‑‑ what was it? It was ‑‑ I can’t remember the name ‑‑ DPN, yes, the “Deaf President Now”. There was a documentary on what happened during the events at Gallaudet University. I was a student at that time and I was a photographer looking at the protest of what happened when the students were protesting to get a deaf president at a deaf university. Then, 30 years later, some of those photos have actually been incorporated into this documentary that is about to be produced. It’s supposed to be released tomorrow, so I have the honour to see my work reflected in this documentary. It was the week the world heard from Gallaudet University and it is now what’s being developed into the documentary which is being produced, so I look forward to its release tomorrow. I just thought I would put that out there.

767 MR. MALKOWSKI (interpreted): It’s live‑streaming on Apple TV.

768 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): Yes. If we’re looking at a digital access code, in 2022 ‑‑ excuse me, it wasn’t the access code, it was the movie “CODA” won an academy award. Troy Kotsur won for best supporting actor, so he has been recognized for his work as a deaf artist in a deaf‑run production.

769 Right now, there are not very many opportunities. That’s why when we’re seeing this increase in the United States, we would love to see the parallel happen in Canada to get the content in American sign language, langue des signes Québécoise and indigenous sign languages.

770 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): We’re happy to be here and raise that awareness.

771 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you for sharing that with us.

772 I have one final question before I turn things over to the vice‑chair. It’s about CPE credits.

773 You proposed using CPE credits to encourage productions that incorporate robust accessibility measures. My question is: do you think that incentives are sufficient or do we need strong requirements?

774 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): It’s interesting, when we were looking into what CPEs were, again that accessibility lens is not present. That is why we thought we would bring that forward to you as an addition, something for you to think about, so not just putting it as the afterthought. So, we’re hoping that the Commission will include in best practices the use of CPEs to help elevate accessible content. So, right now, we’re just trying to fill in the gaps of where we’re recognizing, and hence, we added that.

775 MR. MALKOWSKI (interpreted): And if I might add, what we want to do is create opportunities. So, outreach so we have career opportunities. We could do education. There’s a lot of career counselling happening for educators, for tradespeople. There’s not a lot of information right now in film industry, so there could be, like, career outreach on video production, on showrunner, script productions.

776 It seems like that is currently missing in our education programs, so if we look at the content and how we can educate, do that outreach, and we can start at the high school level ‑‑ get them early in the system. So, a lot of them are drawn to this. If we’re looking at a creative education model, then we could work on content and we could collaborate with colleges and universities who offer programs in television and film production. So, it could be based in broadcast training. It could be academic‑based, through colleges and university broadcasting.

777 We could offer skill training, but have different formulas for each of those, again, to encourage deaf youth to get involved in the film industry, where they could be mentored when we look at other productions that have happened in the past ‑‑ that they’ve partnered, they’ve mentored people who have the skills with those who are just learning.

778 And we’ve seen, in the last 10 years, that the opportunities have just exploded. And so, we could create so many more jobs, and parents who have children who are deaf ‑‑ they know that their children can grow up into a career that, because sign language is offered, and the U.N. convention is trying to encourage this as well, that we want to empower children and not to rely on other countries’ programming, but we want to see our own Canadian content. We want to encourage children so that they see themselves as part of ‑‑ as a Canadian citizen.

779 So, we want to support them, and both ‑‑ the same for LSQ French children. So, we want Indigenous children who use sign language. So, we want to have Canadian content, Canadian stories, the experiences that we could be telling, and to provide that potential career opportunity ‑‑ courses, we could encourage a university course.

780 There are so many venues where we can enhance the economy and we can give children hope to have a future in the broadcasting industry. But it’s going to rely on the Commission to set up that broadcasting code, to set that foundation, and then broadcasters will understand it’s importance and significance, and that we can build bridges, that we can work together. And it’s all part of the same economic ecosystem that we all ‑‑ provinces, territories ‑‑ will all benefit. They will create opportunities to really make Canada stand out and show the rich, colourful, vibrant community that we can showcase.

781 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): For people who are deaf, deaf/blind, and hard of hearing, they have skills. We have things to offer to the broadcasting industry. So, it’s not like we’re looking for pity; we can do it. We have the base that is there.

782 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

783 I will turn things over to our Vice‑Chair of Broadcasting, Madame Théberge. Thank you.

784 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much for a most inspiring presentation. You covered so much that I am having trouble finding questions because you kept answering all of the questions that I had written down. So, it’s a testament to how complete both your submission and your oral presentations were, and I thank you for that.

785 I am particularly interested in your observations.

786 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): And thank you, merci beaucoup.

787 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: I’m particularly interested in your observations regarding Ofcom. Ofcom in many respects is often presented as the gold standard, and we love our sister organization, but Britain and the UK ‑‑ it’s a different type of market; it’s a different type of industry. They face different challenges and they have a different legislative framework with sometimes different public policy objectives.

788 And so, is there anything in the Ofcom experience that you would not recommend we consider here in Canada, whether in the context of this particular hearing, or some of the other hearings that we’ve launched that do cover some of your issues with respect to accessibility? I’m thinking of the hearing on close captioning. I’m thinking of the hearing that will start in a few weeks on market dynamics.

789 So, is there anything that we should not be considering or importing from our sister organization? That would be my question. Thank you very much.

790 MR. MALKOWSKI (interpreted): If I may, you’re right. Ofcom has a lot of red tape, more levels of red tape, and so that would be one recommendation I would have that you do not copy.

791 So, your approval process as well ‑‑ sometimes it can take years for something to get off the ground, but in Canada ‑‑ so, this is the first of its kind presentation that we have ever offered, so we don’t want to go through a lot of red tape validating the need for it, but ‑‑ and I feel one thing that we do better here in Canada is the feasibility studies. For example, when we were setting up video relay service, or VRS, it was done very quickly.

792 In the UK, it would not have been the same. It would have been a very slow process, and CRTC showed that it was individual and able to accomplish something very quickly. It started in 2012. We started the investigation and the service ‑‑ the beta product was ready in 2016. It was ready for review ‑‑ excuse me, we were supposed to have a review recently, and we’re waiting for the budget, but when we look, the feasibility study had said this was possible, and we thought, this is a wonderful opportunity for CRTC.

793 So, I would suggest the digital access in TV code ‑‑ I think that’s going to be key in this situation. I don’t see a problem for broadcasters. Broadcasters tend to be more open‑minded, and it seems more we’re all on the same page; we’re all in the same mentality of the duty to accommodate. And CRTC now has an excellent opportunity, especially during these public hearings, when we went through the TV captioning videos, the websites, I think we’re doing a little bit better job and I think the process and the participation is better here.

794 Ofcom has the fund for the fee‑for‑service, the levy process, and I think CRTC, I think, has a little bit more flexibility with that funding model. We are here, obviously, to listen to your expertise as well, but we think this is just a great opportunity, and the time is right now. And we’re happy to help in any way that we can, because we want the best model in the world to be Canadian. So, we do not want Canada to become part of the U.S.

‑‑‑ Rires

795 MR. MALKOWSKI (interpreted): Not ‑‑ no chance.

796 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): And if I could also add, please. Our wonderful new Prime Minister, Mr. Carney, is working on internal trade barriers, and they want it done by July 1st, in response to the political climate. And we didn’t have to wait for five, six years for this to happen. There are things that can be accomplished within one, two, or three years, and so, we are asking the same thing. Please do like Mr. Carney, and start removing barriers now. Thank you.

797 MR. MALKOWSKI (interpreted): And we are here to help you. Ofcom, FCC are going to be jealous of what CRTC can accomplish.

‑‑‑ Rires

798 MR. BEATTY (interpreted): And if may summarize, Mr. Malkowski and I have experience with the feasibility study through Bell Canada, and if, hopefully, you accept a feasibility study for broadcasting, we can take advantage of the millions of errors that the FCC ‑‑ missteps that they went through ‑‑ and actually provide something, a superior product. We can do our own code; we can set up our own platform. And that’s why we have recommended the feasibility study first.

799 And then, if we can do the same thing that we did for VRS that we are doing now for broadcasting, and I’ve been in touch with Ofcom and Lumo and ‑‑ to see what they have now, what they were able to accomplish ‑‑ but that journey was quite cumbersome. They were happy to chat with us and provide some information, and I found that very interesting. So, we have the opportunity, I think, now, to have that same dialogue.

800 MS. SERGEANT (interpreted): And Commissioners, actually, we should thank LumoTV for the best example on how to do it. Now, let’s make it better. So, let’s ‑‑ and as Mr. Malkowski said, let’s make them jealous.

801 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for those responses. As the Vice Chair said, we have covered a lot of ground this morning, and we would like to give you the opportunity to offer any concluding thoughts.

802 Thank you.

803 MR. MALKOWSKI (interpreted): Yes. So, maybe, as you know, several have started to create documentaries, Canadian success stories in terms of careers. It involves various individuals, teachers, politicians. We would like to include stories that reflect in the broadcasting system too. One thing that’s important to remember ‑‑ you opened the door for us. You are a key player and your decisions have a big impact.

804 We have the opportunity now to establish a new accessibility code and for initiating a feasibility study, to partner with the broadcasters and use their expertise and knowledge. We have expertise around accessibility, around sign languages, and we would like to collaborate with you, have cultural collaboration, cultural engagement. It’s a wonderful opportunity to show the world that we are the leaders in sign language broadcasting and streaming. We want to work with you. We see CRTC as our hope.

805 MR. BEATTY: I do realize that since we’ve been here, we have an opportunity. There was a funny discussion, and I wanted to thank you for the opening, because we’ve learned more about what’s going on, and that there are issues in other communities as well. But at the same time, you are asking for information and knowledge from within these communities, including us and Lumo. We need to start collaborating together and see where we have some commonality. If you, as the Commission, can make this happen, that would go a long way. We are here to work with you, to partner and collaborate all the way.

806 MS. SERGEANT: If I may, I have a question for you. Just nod your head. Have you had an opportunity to take a look at LumoTV?

‑‑‑ Pause

807 MS. SERGEANT: So, you have homework, then.

‑‑‑ Rires

808 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for your presentation today, for your submissions. You obviously came well prepared, and we covered a lot, and we thank you, including for giving us homework. We are very appreciative of your participation.

809 MR. BEATTY: Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

810 MS. SERGEANT: Thank you

811 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now take a ‑‑

812 MR. MALKOWSKI: Oh, also, thank you, Jade, for helping us with everything.

813 THE SECRETARY: You are very welcome.

814 We will take a five‑minute break to connect to the next participants.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 04

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 13

815 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back.

816 We will now hear the presentation of DHH Coalition (Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf and Ontario Association of the Deaf). Please introduce yourself for the record, and you may begin.

Présentation

817 MR. RICHMAN (interpreted): Good morning Commissioners. I am Elliott Richman. This coalition has two organizational members, Ontario Association of the Deaf and the Newfoundland and Labrador Association of the Deaf.

818 The Deaf and Hard of Hearing Coalition represents deaf and hard of hearing consumers who watch and hopefully enjoy video programming. Our coalition emphasizes that it does not create such programming. It therefore does not have any specific or technical opinions on what a “Canadian” program means. For example, it does not have any recommendations on issues like key creative positions, the points system, and the addition of a showrunner.

819 Having clarified that, the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Coalition wishes to comment on the public opinion research report from Phoenix Strategy Perspectives. Part of page 9 of that report reads as:

“Canadians with disabilities were more likely to mention genre preferences and accessibility when it came to factors influencing their decisions to watch programming.”

820 This is 2025. All viewers must be able to watch any video programming that they want to watch without worrying about accessibility. Anyone, anywhere, anytime, any video program. End of story, period. To that very end, the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Coalition wants you to look at it from a deaf and hard of hearing lens that must be applied to Canadian program definition. That means no Canadian program certification shall be awarded unless the video program is 100 per cent accurately closed‑captioned. Alternatively, a Canadian program certification may be awarded to a video program produced in sign language.

821 Deaf and Hard of Hearing Coalition leaves it to the Commission to determine exactly how to technically and administratively apply this particular DHH lens to the Canadian program definition. Once that is done, all viewers, including deaf and hard of hearing viewers, may watch any video program they want: anyone, anywhere, any time, any video program.

822 Thank you. I’m hoping I’m still under my 10 minutes that was allotted to me.

823 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are great for time. So thank you so much. Thank you for your submissions and your presentation. I know that the Panel has some questions and is looking forward to engaging with your further, so I will turn things over to my colleague, Vice‑Chair Théberge. Thank you.

824 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much and welcome to this proceeding. It’s a pleasure for us to have you virtually among us. And thank you also for your presentation. I have just a few questions for you.

825 So you may be aware that last June the Commission launched a process to develop a regulatory policy for closed captioning provided by online services. We also have in addition to this particular hearing another hearing coming up on what we call market dynamics and sustainability, where issues around accessibility in particular will be addressed. Do you think there are any other additional steps that are required to be able to take on the reality that you’ve presented us with, which is the challenges faced by the deaf community in accessing content, Canadian content, whether on traditional or online services?

826 MR. RICHMAN (interpreted): I think there’s maybe two, at least two processes to look at here. One is related to closed captioning, particularly the online format. The 2024‑137, that’s what we are talking about. That’s where we want the captions to be 100 per cent accurate. That particular area of request is separate from the topic that’s under consideration, I realize, perhaps in this Commission for the 2024‑288.

827 I know we’re talking about the definition of Canadian programming in this session. But I believe there is some overlap between the two. So for us, the priority is the access through closed captioning. And the definition, we would like to make sure that programming, the definition of Canadian programming includes accurate captions. And that’s required before any certification can be awarded. Does that answer the question you were asking?

828 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Yes. And maybe I’ll move on to something a little more specific related to your submission, if that’s okay with you.

829 You do suggest in your submission that programs produced in sign languages should be eligible for Canadian program certification and that no program should be eligible for such Canadian program certification unless it is closed captioned. Could you expand a little bit on what you mean by “produced in sign language”? Is that programming originally produced in sign language, or some form of add‑on to a program to make it more accessible?

830 MR. RICHMAN (interpreted): I guess we’re looking at two different concepts here. So first of all, all programming, to get the Canadian certificate, must have accurate captions, right. That’s the one piece. And then I guess access to, let’s see, general ‑‑ my understanding is any program, any production done in English or done in French would qualify as a Canadian program or certificate if they met the various requirements that have already been outlined.

831 As DWCC just mentioned in the previous presentation, they were talking about video production done in American sign language. If it’s made in Canada, then it would qualify as Canadian programming. So in other words, a program produced in Canada in English, French, or sign language would qualify as Canadian content, Canadian certified eligible, aside from the technical requirements.

832 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Aside from the technical requirements, meaning some other mandatory requirements that are already in the definition or that could be modified as a result of the hearing ‑‑

833 MR. RICHMAN (interpreted): Exactly, yes.

834 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: That’s what you’re saying.

835 MR. RICHMAN (interpreted): Yes.

836 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: So you’re not saying that as long as it’s, you know, produced in sign language, that’s not enough of a point, let’s put it that way, to have it receive Canadian certification. It’s in the context of a list or a checklist of ‑‑

837 MR. RICHMAN (interpreted): Correct, correct, yes.

838 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ check points. Okay, thank you. Thank you for the clarification. Sorry, did you want to add something?

839 MR. RICHMAN (interpreted): If it meets the CTE, like if it meets some of the other things in the point system or the key creative positions that are required or defined already, so it meets those categories or requirements and is sign language, then we feel it should be awarded the certificate.

840 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: All right, thank you. Thank you, this is a useful clarification.

841 You did mention the presentation of the intervenors that appeared just before you, so I’m going to use this and ask you perhaps some reactions to some of their proposals. In particular, they talked about the opportunity for the CRTC to consider a little bit like they have in the UK a digital access code for broadcasters. They talked also about doing a feasibility study on accessibility in broadcasting. Again, some of these issues will also be addressed in upcoming proceedings, but I was curious to get some of your reactions to those proposals, whether you think these would be good steps in addressing some of the challenges highlighted by the organizations that you represent.

842 MR. RICHMAN (interpreted): To be honest, I don’t actually know, because we are only representing deaf and hard of hearing consumers. We’re not really getting involved at all in the creative side, the production side, the programming side. So if CRTC makes a decision that they think is viable in the options being presented, I guess what I should say is what I stated, it just has to be accurate captions.

843 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Thank you for your answers.

844 MR. RICHMAN (interpreted): And I could maybe follow up.

845 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Thank you very much. I believe that the deadline for following up, and the team will certainly connect with you, is June 4th, right? I see that my colleague Jade Roy is confirming. So we will get in touch with you. Thank you very much, and I’ll pass it back to the Chair. Thank you again.

846 MR. RICHMAN (interpreted): Thank you.

847 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. I’m just looking around the table to see if there are further questions from the Panel. I think we have a question from Commissioner Naidoo. Thank you.

848 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hello. Thank you so much for being here today. I’m just wondering, you’ve talked a lot about closed captioning, but many productions routinely hire local on‑set consultants for environmental sustainability in every locale to advise local productions about the lay of the land, the rules, and the bylaws in certain locales. Could having accessibility consultants for productions work in a similar manner? In other words, maybe having a body that trains people across the country, gets them up to speed, offers them up for hire to production companies for when they’re doing productions in Canada, would that be something that you think might help?

849 MR. RICHMAN (interpreted): Really, I’m giving this a second thought. We are open to any way that kind of guarantees that the captions will be accurately displayed. We don’t really have any process in mind about how to achieve that. But we just want to make sure that captions are a hundred per cent accurate before they can get their certificate. And that’s our main comment. Before you define Canadian programming, we need that accuracy in the captions. That’s our main point.

850 Who does that? Who guarantees that? We don’t have an opinion. We leave that up to you, those involved, the team that is part of the creative process or the production. Just as long as it’s done. And because it’s done, it’s done because CRTC requires it, and then they get their certificate, their Canadian programming certificate. But again, it’s back to accurate, 100 per cent accurate captions.

851 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. I found your presentation very interesting. Thank you.

852 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much ‑‑

853 MR. RICHMAN (interpreted): Thank you.

854 THE CHAIRPERSON:  ‑‑ to the DHH Coalition for your presentation. We would like to turn things back over to you to add any additional thoughts or any kind of concluding messages. Thank you.

855 MR. RICHMAN (interpreted): Yes, if I may. Now that I’ve had a little bit more time to digest some of this, I just want to say that the impact of AI needs to be considered. The Deaf and Hard of Hearing Coalition wants to make it clear that we don’t want to see AI producing the captions. That’s not the end of the stage. We want to avoid that at all costs because it doesn’t work. And that’s how I want to conclude this. I do appreciate your time. Thank you.

856 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for joining us today. We very much appreciate your participation.

857 THE SECRETARY: One second, please. I think legal counsel wants to ask a question.

858 MS. WEXLER: I just wanted to confirm the undertaking that was provided. So will you confirm that you’ve undertaken to provide any views on the DWCC’s proposals that they made in their oral remarks today, particularly with respect to their proposed TV and digital access code and a feasibility study, by June 4th?

859 MR. RICHMAN (interpreted): Will do.

Engagement

860 MS. WEXLER: Thank you.

861 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

862 THE SECRETARY: I will now ask Shaw Rocket Fund to come to the presentation table. You may begin when you are ready. Please introduce yourselves.

Présentation

863 MS. AUGUSTIN: Good morning, Chairperson Eatrides, Commissioners, and Commission staff. My name is Agnes Augustin and I am the president and CEO of the Shaw Rocket Fund. I am joined by Christine Shipton, chair of the Rocket Fund’s board, former senior broadcast executive; Gave Lindo, Rocket Fund board director, former CBC executive, and now chief content officer of Troveo AI; and Erin Finlay, our legal counsel. We thank the Commission for the opportunity to appear before you to speak to the importance of Canadian content for our children.

864 For over 25 years, Rocket Fund has been a vital partner and advocate for the Canadian children’s media sector. We have proudly supported the creation of robust, world‑leading content across all platforms. As a dedicated voice for Canadian and Indigenous children’s and youth content, we remain committed to this sector despite many uncertainties, including the future of our fund.

865 We have a simple, urgent message: Canada’s broadcasting system has failed our kids.

866 Since the Commission removed the regulatory measures that once supported a vibrant Canadian market for kids’ content, the total volume of children’s and youth production has fallen from $628 million in 2015 to $387 million in 2024. The kids’ share of total Canadian production volume has dropped from 21 percent to 10.5 percent. And similarly, in the last 10 years, CMF’s funding fell from 20 percent to 11 percent of its programming budgets.

867 And with Rogers planning to withdraw its contributions to the Shaw Rocket Fund this summer, the future looks even more alarming for Canada’s children’s and youth media sector.

868 MS. SHIPTON: This is a market failure, plain and simple. But the market failure goes beyond declining production volumes.

869 There is a market failure in the creation of new, original content that reflects the values of our current society. Canadian kids are growing up seeing stories from everywhere but home.

870 There is a market failure in quality control, programming that is developmentally appropriate for a child’s cognitive, emotional and social development, a responsibility historically upheld by the regulated broadcasting system, is no longer the standard.

871 There is a market failure in access. The digital‑first generation is being raised on platforms that barely feature Canadian content.

872 And there is a market failure in representation. Canadian and Indigenous children’s experiences, voices and realities are not being represented onscreen. Airing legacy kids programming is not the answer. Older programs do not reflect Canada’s diverse population or Canadian attitudes, opinions, ideas or values as we know them today.

873 MS. AUGUSTIN: This is a crisis, a crisis not just for the Canadian broadcasting system, but for the very identity of our next generations.

874 Canadian children are growing up in a globalized, digital world. They are members of Gen Alpha and now Gen Beta raised alongside AI, smart devices and a flood of unregulated content from around the world. Just like adults, Canadian and Indigenous kids have access to an infinite amount of content that is not Canadian, is often not high quality, and does not represent or respect who they are.

875 Today, we are urging the Commission to act, to act boldly and urgently. We propose that at least 20 percent of Canadian Programming Expenditures, CPE, be dedicated to children’s and youth programming. And if a broadcaster or streaming service doesn’t offer children’s content, then that 20 percent must be redirected to a fund like the Rocket Fund to ensure Canadian children’s and youth content is available on all platforms.

876 This proposal aligns with the fact that kids represent 20 percent of Canada’ population. It also aligns with the CMF’s decision to target 21 percent of its broadcaster envelopes to kids’ programming.

877 Rocket Fund welcomes the CMF’s recent announcement in changes to this year’s programs in support of children and youth content. However, this funding still requires a market trigger from broadcasters, streamers and distributors. As the last 10 years has demonstrated, incentives alone will not be enough. Permanent measures imposed by the Commission are necessary.

878 The new broadcasting framework must include a 20 percent Kids Allocation of CPE, so that our kids will learn to spell “colour” with a “u”, pronounce “zed” instead of “zee”, and will grow up seeing their Indigenous, Black, 2SLGBTQIA+ and diverse communities celebrated on screen.

879 MS. SHIPTON: And make no mistake, if we do not tell our children that their stories and realities matter, then we risk losing their connection to what it means to be Canadian.

880 Our kids are watching. We owe it to them to build a broadcasting system that sees them, too.

881 Thank you for inviting us to appear. We welcome your questions.

882 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for being here today, and thank you for sharing your perspectives with us.

883 I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott to start with the questions for the Commission. Thank you.

884 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being with us this morning.

885 My first question was going to be whether children’s programming as a category that needs a small nudge or a Hail Mary. I think you’ve answered that already.

886 But to dig in a little bit deeper, could you tell us some more about how challenging the economics of producing Canadian kids’ programming are, especially relative to other programming that’s also struggling for financing? Where do you sit in the stack? Like is it harder than news but easier than some other things?

887 Like a bit of relative comparison to the challenge.

888 MS. AUGUSTIN: Well, we would say that it’s probably one of the hardest today. Children’s programming does not generate advertising revenue. Its content that has historically relied on the Canadian system to provide funding and it relies on Canadian broadcasters historically to trigger the content. And what we’ve seen and what’s been demonstrated by the CMF Genre Report is that, over the last 10 years, with the removal of any protections, genre protections or protections for children’s content, that the commissioning and the resources has moved to other genres of programming. So we would say that the financing and the ability to produce and close financing has been very challenging.

889 MS. FINLAY: I think we heard yesterday from the CAB just for a brief moment about the sheer volume of kids’ content that’s around the world and cutting through some of that volume, and I actually wondered if Gave might speak to that a little bit in terms of the challenges with that.

890 MR. LINDO: Well, I think in terms of ‑‑ you know, there’s no shortage of content that’s created, especially on online platforms. The issue is it’s not Canadian content, for the most part. And so without an obligation to ensure that that content is created to the point made earlier about there not being advertising revenue, it typically is one of the first categories to be dropped from broadcasters who are struggling for revenue.

891 And so you know, we look at the amount of content available globally as not necessarily a positive sign for Canadian content because it’s not being produced at the same volume and levels that it has historically.

892 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

893 Yeah, so what extent ‑‑ I think you’ve argued that it’s a market failure. How would you respond to the argument that rather than a market failure, the lack of financing for Canadian children’s programming might actually be reflective of Canadian audience preferences as opposed to a market failure?

894 MS. SHIPTON: We know that there’s an audience for children’s programming. Ask anybody who has kids or grandkids. The audience is there. They’re hungry. And the parents are trying to direct them in the right place to watch what they believe is the most appropriate, the programming.

895 I mean, I watch my seven‑year‑old grandson. I said this morning to my daughter, “What are they watching this morning?”. A great Australian show that they just love. They watched it four times. I said “Great”.

896 So there’s an audience there. There’s no question.

897 MS. AUGUSTIN: Kids, as Gave was pointing out, there’s an unlimited amount of content for kids. Kids are also on various platforms that are experiencing their content in different ways and that content is not Canadian. And what we’re seeing is that kids are not just on one platform, they’re on many platforms. So while they’re watching linear television, they’re also on online platforms, they’re also on gaming platforms, and so when we ‑‑ when they say that viewership is, you know, not there for kids, it really is that it’s just ‑‑ that’s not their only destination. There’s many destinations that we see.

898 MS. FINLAY: And in terms of market failure, our submission is there is a market failure. In terms of the Commission’s job, we need to ensure that the market is producing the policy outcomes that the legislation has decided the system needs to produce, right. And so what we said in our opening remarks that leads to the market failure or is indicative of the market failure is there’s a failure in volume, there’s a failure in ‑‑ that there’s not enough Canadian content out there for children, there’s a failure in quality control, there’s a failure in access and not meeting kids where they are, and there’s a failure in representation. There isn’t enough content, there is ‑‑ it’s not representative of 20 percent of the population, but also the content that is out there is not reflective of Canadian values, expressions, ideas, voices and experiences.

899 So we say those are all indicative of a market failure that warrants Commission intervention.

900 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

901 So to what degree does the path to success lie through traditional broadcast versus big streamers versus, you know, social and easy access video on demand type services? What’s the path to victory?

902 MS. AUGUSTIN: The path of victory would be a 20 percent CPE to children’s content in our country that would allow for creation of Canadian children’s content.

903 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. So when you proposed that, you made specific mention that broadcasters and streamers that weren’t producing their own children’s content could contribute to the fund, but that implied some flexibility, that they could pursue alternative courses.

904 Is there ‑‑ were there specific people that you thought were more likely to choose one path than the other? Did you have someone specific in mind when you built in that flexibility? So who do you expect to pay into the fund versus who do you expect to produce directly?

905 MS. AUGUSTIN: Today, we would say that it would be fair less that would want to create Canadian children’s programming, but we felt that also there’d be an opportunity that if that was implemented that there might be an incentive to create more content for children and air it. So that was the goal there.

906 I would say when we look at what’s happening today, we know that Bell is going to be dropping the WildBrain channels and that Rogers has indicated that they’re going to drop the Corus channels, and we don’t know that there’s a trend ‑‑ not even a trend. It’s happening where there’s ‑‑ the system is abandoning kids.

907 So who would actually pay into the fund, we would hope that it would be an incentive so that that would actually encourage more content of Canadian children’s programming on our actual networks and the online streamers, but then the option would be if it was a streamer or a channel that did not offer children’s programming that they would then contribute an equivalent amount to a fund where we could create that content and then use that content and offer it on other platforms.

908 MS. SHIPTON: But we see no activity at Rogers. If you’re saying who would be contributing to the fund, there’s no activity or discussion there in terms of their over‑the‑air channels, anything to do with kids. We hear there’s nibbling at Bell that some youth content might be developed for Crave, which is ‑‑ would be exciting because, again, there’s different areas of children’s and youth that can be looked at.

909 And again, if they have a regulatory obligation, they’ll say, okay, let’s do that. It’s a primetime show about kids in high school. Let’s go. It would fit on Crave.

910 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So if our goals include, you know, an effective framework but also a relatively simple framework, and I’m looking at the creation of the allocation within the broader CPE envelope, and I think I heard you say you’re pretty down on the notion of just an incentive mechanism, so ‑‑ and I was thinking incentives in the form of like a multiplier. So if broadcasters got, you know, 2X consideration for children’s programming towards their CPE, is there a number at which that might be effective or does it not ‑‑ fundamentally not work as a model, in your opinion?

911 MS. FINLAY: I would say we’re not down with that as a model. Incentive may work in certain circumstances, but the problem with those types of CPE credits, those types of CPE credit incentives, is that, one, when the do work, it means less expenditures on Canadian programming. And the reality is, we haven’t seen them work very well yet, so we have credits for Indigenous programming. That hasn’t really worked very well. We’ve credits for official language minority communities that I think hasn’t worked at all. And over the last 10 years, we haven’t seen any sort of incentives working for kids’ programming.

912 So our view is that it has to be prescriptive, that incentives will absolutely not work for this market, and I think the data demonstrates that.

913 MS. SHIPTON: And as you look at incentives versus regulation, I can tell you broadcasters won’t do it unless they’re regulated to do it.

914 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, thanks. I’ll make this my last question, then.

915 So on ‑‑ the broad question, essentially, is how prescriptive do we need to be in looking at the broad number of objectives we’re pursuing, and especially through a lens of intersectionality? Even within the, you know, children’s programming, if we want programming that’s reflective of Indigenous children and children that are member of equity‑seeking groups and children that speak different languages, how ‑‑ even within your children’s allocation, do we need five, six, 10 other allocations or is that where we can trust market forces?

916 Where do we stop being prescriptive and let market forces kick in, if ever?

917 MS. AUGUSTIN: Well, as far as the Rocket Fund that represents children and so our ‑‑ we represent all Canadian children with all of our programs. And we have historically supported programs in all official languages, both official languages, minority languages, Indigenous languages and we have, over our 25 years ‑‑ and our goal has always been to ensure that we include all Canadian children. So as far as how we would represent Canada with the content if that 20 percent went into a fund, it would certainly ‑‑ showing what we’ve done in the past that it would continue to service all Canadian children.

918 And we also look at it as a ‑‑ that it would a cross‑over with any other potential regulation or any other potential CPE that you take a look at children overall and that we would complement that.

919 MS. SHIPTON: But we would continue to use the same filters that, as Agnes is saying, we’ve been using for 25 years that a certain percentage of our fund goes to French language, that representation has to be there, that there’s Indigenous programming. Like we have filters to ensure that we’re spreading the jam around.

920 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much.

921 Madam Chair, those are my questions.

922 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice‑Chair.

923 Let’s go to Commissioner Paquette.

924 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Hello.

925 We had in front of us TFO yesterday. I don’t know if you’ve heard their intervention, but they proposed the creation of a fund to support youth and children programming. And you as a fund, you don’t directly propose money to a fund, but you propose CPE expenses up to, I think, 20 percent should be allocated toward new original programming and then only if a platform, a broadcaster, do not reach CPE expenses the money would go to a fund.

926 So does this mean that you find that in general, CPE expenses are a better tool to reach a target, an objective, than financing a fund?

927 And I would also like to have your reaction to TFO’s proposal about the creation of a fund.

928 MS. AUGUSTIN: We were a bit surprised that we are an existing fund dedicated to children’s content that’s been around for 25 years and, in fact ‑‑ and understanding that we deal with a different part of TFO, but we did a quick look and 33 programs that the Rocket Fund has invested in is airing on TFO today, of which half were commissioned by TFO with other partners or acquired by TFO. So we’ve been a partner with them going forward.

929 And the thing about our proposal that we think is great is it actually offers both because it ‑‑ the CPE requirement would then ensure that the children’s programming ‑‑ I mean, you can fund content, but it has to air somewhere and kids have to be able to find it.

930 So the proposal, actually, is both, the CPE requirement and the model works, so that the CPE would encourage the ‑‑ whoever’s under the system, whether it’s the legacy or the online broadcast ‑‑ or the online streamers to carry and air children’s programming and then also have an opportunity to be able to take the equivalent resource and put it into a fund for children and put it on platforms where they are that are perhaps outside that system and that Canadian content will be accessible to our children on all those platforms where they experience their content.

931 MS. SHIPTON: But you have to understand, Rocket Fund acts as a fund to top up the production budget. So producers will have their licence from a broadcaster and it’ll be bare minimum. They’ll top up as much as they can from CMF, but for quality production it’s often the budgets are larger. They’re much larger. Or they need support or they need support in different areas, whether it’s for their online extension or their brand building. And that’s been Rocket Fund’s role.

932 So yes, we need the content being generated and coming to us, but the activity of a fund would ‑‑ and maybe Agnes can speak to this ‑‑ would allow Rocket Fund to support those producers who are out there in the world on other platforms with children’s content.

933 MS. AUGUSTIN: In 2016, our regulation with the CRTC allowed us to be more flexible where we’re able to finance content that’s ‑‑ on any platform that’s available to Canadian audiences. And being that we’re in the children’s space, of course, that was ‑‑ it was huge for us. It allowed us to support a number of projects that would ‑‑ were not able to get a broadcast commission and that were very important to Canadian audiences.

934 The biggest challenge, as Christine pointed out, is that the funding is generally tied to the legacy system and tied to a broadcast trigger or a type of market trigger. And so while those programs have been very valuable and we’ve done as much as we can to support them as ‑‑ through our brand‑building program, through doing our best to see success, these are the shows that are lacking as far as budget and being able to reach ‑‑ be able to grow.

935 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you.

936 Do you see a reason why TFO is proposing a new fund since the Shaw Rocket Fun is already there?

937 MS. AUGUSTIN: No.

938 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you very much.

939 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

940 Let’s go to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

941 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much, and thank you to all of you. I’m going to pick up on the food analogy just because it seems to be the theme this week.

942 So the problem with a thin layer of jam is if it’s too thin, you don’t taste the jam any more, right. So given that there’s still an appetite for good content coming from kids in Canada, is it just moving elsewhere, perhaps, away from traditional broadcasting into online streaming services? That’s the first element.

943 The second element, this is a small market, Canada, and I’m sure there’s appetite for good content here, but there’s probably also appetite for good kids’ content, Canadian content internationally.

944 So how do you pick those good thick layered jam kind of project that are likely to support a demand for more instead of focusing on the market failure is focusing on the creation of more demand for Canadian content, including coming from international audiences, and what is it in our current system that creates an obstacle for doing more of that? So trying to address the discoverability and exportability issue, which is core to some of the things we’re exploring this in particular hearing.

945 Thank you.

946 MS. AUGUSTIN: Well, there was a time when Canada was the leading exporter of children’s content. We were number one in the world. And that was at a time when there was regulation in place and it allowed for the creation of high‑quality, high budget content that was supported by a very robust broadcasting system. We had genre protection. There was specific kids’ channels that had quotas and had requirements to air Canadian children’s programming. And there was ‑‑ the system itself allowed our Canadian kids’ content to grow and to become world‑renowned. It was great. It was actually over the years, and you can see over the last 10 years, when those protections were removed, that the resources were then just moved elsewhere, so what’s really inhibiting our sector and our producers to be able to be more successful, it’s not that our content isn’t still very valuable globally, it’s just that we’re not able to create it anymore at the level that we used to be able to produce it at. That’s the main barrier at the moment.

947 Discoverability is something that we feel is very important and the Rocket Fund has been part of working with our producers on discoverability for many years now and contributes to the discoverability through financial support when we can, but it is required, and it’s something that requires funding and something that requires support, especially in the world today where kids are everywhere. It can be done with the right tools. It’s just the biggest challenge we’re having right now is the lack of resources to be able to implement those tools and be able to support producers.

948 MS. SHIPTON: There’s nothing stopping any broadcaster or streamer from reaping the rewards of successful Canadian programming. Just because we say there’s no advertising, no, no, no, there are rewards. If you get a hit, you got a hit. It’s like any genre of programming. They can have partial ownership and shared ownership and share the rewards on that project. There’s nothing stopping them; it’s just that they’re not being asked to do it.

949 If there is a regulation that they must do this and they must spend this money on children’s content, trust me, they’re going to get great executives in there, because the boss is going to say, “Okay. Make me a hit. If I’ve got to do this, I better do it well. Let’s go kids.” There always have been ‑‑ sorry, Gave, because Gave was at the CBC as an executive ‑‑ fabulous executives in children, and there still are, at the CBC where they produce children’s content. You know, they just have to be told they have to do this and then they’ll make it work is my opinion.

950 MS. AUGUSTIN: If I could also add that discoverability is definitely key. On top of the requirement to air programming and be able to fund programming that the Rocket Fund has been very active with, we have what we call a brand‑building program that our producers are able to come to us to access ‑‑ to be able to reach audiences in different ways than the standard broadcast advertising model. We have very innovative ways that our producers are reaching kids today on various types of either platforms or anything from museum activations to VR experiences. The Rocket Fund has been actively a key partner in that going forward. We believe that’s something that is also required in order to ensure that our kids find our content.

951 MS. SHIPTON: Our guidelines are very specific. Any project coming to us for funding must have a discoverability plan. You must tell us how this is going to be a discovered project.

952 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

953 Perhaps just some quick technical follow‑up questions on my favourite subject, intellectual property.

954 Several of the parties to this particular proceeding have put forward some concrete proposals on how we should be dealing with IP in the context of the CanCon definition. I was wondering whether you had thoughts on how we should be addressing IP in CanCon.

955 MS. SHIPTON: Our first thought is that this is a discussion to have with producers. They are the experts in this. They understand the unintended consequences of shifting the guidelines around intellectual property.

956 At the Rocket Fund, our preference is that the financial and creative controls be held by Canadians. Creative control ensures Canadian values and sensibilities that are reflected and embedded in the content. Financial control allows for Canadian producers to benefit, reap the rewards and produce more, which would be the ultimate goal.

957 MS. AUGUSTIN: We also recognize that in the new framework that there may be variations and that there is ‑‑ historically, the Rocket Fund, under our policy, you know, we will abide by Canadian content, like the Canadian programming rule, we’ll abide by what is required, but what we can say is that one of the greatest things that happened is when we were able to have more flexibility in 2016 to be able to pivot and help a sector that was going through change and continues to go through change. We would say, when it comes to that, that absolutely we want to ensure that Canadian stories are being told for our Canadian kids by Canadians and that our values are there. We just encourage that there will be flexibility for our producers so they can continue to be able to create the content that they can for our children.

958 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

959 Commissioner Naidoo.

960 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for being here today.

961 We all know that traditional channels are losing viewers, but we know that children are actually watching. They’re watching online. They’ve changed the way that they watch. Is your strategy reinforcing where children are or where they aren’t?

962 The fear among some, as we’ve all heard, is: is the audience ever going to return to traditional television? I’m wondering if you can tell us your thoughts on that.

963 MS. AUGUSTIN: What we have seen is that traditional ‑‑ kids have migrated away from traditional television to a certain degree, but what we have seen, there is research that MTM has provided that shows that children ‑‑ and it was not part of our submission, but it was I believe part of WildBrain submission ‑‑ that children are watching linear content, they’re online, but also if they’re not ‑‑ if the system is not offering high‑quality content on the linear platforms, then they’re not actually going to be that, so it’s a matter of kids will ‑‑ all the research shows that children will go, and parents will go, where the quality content is or where they can find the content that they want to watch. I would say that, currently, yes, they’re moving away from our system, but we do believe that if we’re able to offer more robust Canadian content and relevant content on the platforms, we do find that they go back and forth between the platforms. It’s a different viewing experience for this generation and something that we feel that there’s an ability to reach them there.

964 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Did you want to add something? Okay.

965 I think you’ve addressed why you think that children’s audiences have moved online, because you’re saying that there wasn’t quality ‑‑ is what you’re saying that there wasn’t quality content on ‑‑ enough quality content for them to choose untraditional?

966 MS. AUGUSTIN: I would say that maybe new quality content, because there is still content on the traditional. We would just submit that there is not new, relevant content, especially if you take a look in the last five years and the changes of how we perceive content and how children perceive content, that it is really critical that we are creating relevant content for who children are today.

967 You know, I thought Gave could maybe add toward this.

968 MR. LINDO: Yes. I would just add to your question.

969 I think that if you look at most broadcasters, they have a secondary service that’s online. For example, there’s CBC Gem, and you see this sort of trend globally.

970 In addition, broadcasters often have their own channels within, you know, news‑streaming platforms as well, like YouTube, for example. The content, it’s not a zero‑sum game in terms of how kids access content; it can be on traditional platforms. That very same content can also live on their companion services and also traditional partnerships.

971 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that.

972 I guess the question is: are you suggesting moving audiences back to traditional viewing? Maybe you can share with us what your plans are to embrace the online platforms or the online world?

973 MS. AUGUSTIN: Our goal is to be where the children are, and that would be on various platforms. I mean we are looking at an online streaming act as well, so we are looking at where kids are. Are they online or are they on streamers? Are they on various other platforms?

974 I think Gave can add to this, but one of the other areas that we look at is that on the online platform it’s unregulated and the type of content that kids are seeing and parents are seeing, it’s an easy access, but it’s not always the highest‑quality content.

975 I would love for Gave to add to that.

976 MR. LINDO: Yeah. I think that we, of course, acknowledge, and as was mentioned earlier, having content available for Canadians where they are is a huge part of our mandate and what we think about. Kids, of course, are online and ensuring that there’s high‑quality content that’s representative and reflective of Canadian values on those platforms is hugely important, especially because there is such a high amount of volume of content that is produced from individual creators that’s unregulated and doesn’t have the same attention to developmental milestones that, you know, traditionally produced Canadian content has, looking at the emotional, cognitive, physical and social stages of development. These are all things that have always been a centrepiece of Canadian‑produced content that shares those values and is reflective of who we are.

977 To go back just to your question, I think that we’re not saying that we’re trying to migrate kids back to television; it’s really about ensuring that there’s high‑quality content that’s produced, that’s available, regardless of where they’d like to see it.

978 MS. SHIPTON: Don’t forget producers and broadcasters and streamers are very clever with their windowing. There will be second and third platforms that this content appears on. The key is to have had enough money put into the system to make great content.

979 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

980 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your submissions. Thank you for engaging with the panel on a variety of issues.

981 We would like to turn things back over to you for any final thoughts. Thank you.

982 MS. AUGUSTIN: Thank you for the opportunity to present today.

983 We wanted to say that it’s just our Canadian kids’ industry is in crisis. We do believe that this isn’t a trend; it is actually happening today. As we see the trends in the broadcasting system moving away from kids’ content, the probability of the Rocket Fund not existing in a year or so, based on ‑‑ depending on our contributions, looking at Rogers potentially dropping Corus channels, as we mentioned earlier, looking at now already saying that they’ll drop the WildBrain channels, and then not having any opportunity within the system to be able to finance content for children where they are. This isn’t just this is going to happen; it is already happening.

984 We do believe that there’s an opportunity within this framework and within the system to be able to make sure that kids are prioritized in our broadcasting system, and that we, as Canadians, say, “Yes, our kids are important and we are going to ensure that they are served by our broadcasting system, and also served in a way that they are developing where they are in the world today and on the platforms where they are.”

985 Thank you.

986 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you again for being here with us today.

987 I’ll turn things back over to Madam Hearing Secretary. Thank you.

988 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

989 I will now ask the Canadian Film Centre, National Screen Institute & L’institut national de l’image et du son de s’approcher à la table.

990 When you are ready, please introduce yourself.

Présentation

991 MS. BAILEY: Thank you.

992 Bonjour, Madam Chair, vice‑chairs, commissioners and staff.

993 My name is Maxime Bailey. I’m the Executive Director of the Canadian Film Centre in Toronto. I’m joined today by the co‑authors of our submission, Christine Kleckner, Executive Director of the National Screen Institute in Winnipeg, and Jean Hamel, Directeur général of L’inis based in Montreal. Together, we represent a trifecta of organizations committed to the advanced training and long‑term career sustainability of Canada’s screen‑based talent. From coast to coast to coast, we provide the training and mentorship that transition emerging and mid‑career creators into industry leaders.

994 We are here today, as we were in November of 2023, with an urgent message: modernizing Canada’s broadcasting system must start at the beginning, by investing in talent development and training. Quite simply, Canada cannot have a thriving, competitive screen‑based sector if we do not invest in their foundational training. A revised regulatory framework must consider training funds as essential to ensure that the next generation of Canadian storytellers is prepared to not only enter the system, but to shape and grow it.

995 In light of recent international developments around tariffs on foreign productions, it is more important than ever to build a strong, self‑sustaining domestic industry that can stand on its own and thrive regardless of external pressures. At the heart of Canadian episodic storytelling is the showrunner, the individual who shapes, manages and delivers a television series from beginning to end. If we want to ensure Canadian stories are led by Canadian voices, we must invest in training showrunners to be competitive here at home.

996 The CFC, NSI and L’inis play a vital role in equipping emerging creators with the technical, managerial, and creative skills needed for show‑running. By supporting the expansion of eligible key creative roles to include showrunners, and focusing our training efforts on developing them, we’re drawing a direct line between training and industry outcomes. More showrunners means more certified Canadian content, more jobs, stronger leadership and a stronger domestic production ecosystem.

997 The screen industry is a major economic driver, contributing billions to Canada’s GDP and employing tens of thousands. Allocating Canadian program expenditures to a dedicated training fund is a strategic investment that builds cultural sovereignty and grows our economy.

998 Thanks to our programming, we’ve helped launch and support the careers of some of Canada’s most successful and innovative showrunners: Tassie Cameron, “Law & Order Toronto”; Erin Haskett, “Allegiance”; Jennifer Podemski, “Little Bird”; and Joseph Kay, “Transplant”. These creators are working in Canada, growing our economy and leading the stories we tell and export to the world.

999 I’ll now turn it over to my colleague Christine Kleckner.

1000 MS. KLECKNER: Thank you, Maxime.

1001 We cannot overstate how vital it is that showrunners be Canadian. We support expanding the number of CanCon points to include showrunners. This will broaden the number of Canadian voices and leadership in production provided the point increase does not dilute the contribution of key Canadian talent.

1002 Certifiable Canadian productions must meet minimum thresholds for Canadian involvement in key creative roles. We urge the CRTC to modernize these rules by requiring that when a Canadian showrunner is attached to a project, they’re meaningfully paired with Canadians in other key creative roles, such as director, writer and first‑ or second‑lead performer. This ensures a truly Canadian creative vision and maximizes the cultural and economic impact of certification.

1003 When Canadians lead, our stories reflect who we are, our values, regions, languages and lived experiences. That’s how we build cultural sovereignty in a rapidly‑evolving media landscape. Now, more than ever, we must invest in a homegrown industry, one that not only mirrors the diversity of Canadian life back to its people, but also shares those stories with the world. That sovereignty begins with access to professional development, and it begins with training. More training dollars leads to more Canadian showrunners, and more Canadian showrunners lead to a wider variety of authentic Canadian stories onscreen. This isn’t just cultural policy; it’s a nation‑building strategy.

1004 Thank you. I’ll pass this over to Jean Hamel.

1005 M. HAMEL : Oui, bonjour. Alors, mes remarques dans mon cas vont porter spécifiquement sur les questions liées à l’intelligence artificielle.

1006 Alors, l’arrivée de l’IA générative, son évolution rapide et son impact sur les processus créatifs ont suscité une vive inquiétude dans l’ensemble de l’industrie audiovisuelle.

1007 En tant que centres de formation professionnelle, nous suivons évidemment de près le développement rapide de l’intelligence artificielle dans la création de contenu. Nous pensons que le Canada a le potentiel de devenir un chef de file dans ce domaine, mais seulement si notre main‑d’œuvre créative a accès aux outils et aux ressources nécessaires pour s’adapter à cette transformation inévitable.

1008 Inspirés par la déclaration de principe de CBC Radio‑Canada concernant l’utilisation de l’IA doit soutenir et améliorer la production audiovisuelle en veillant à ce que la créativité et le jugement éditorial restent fermement entre les mains de l’humain.

1009 Certains mémoires déposés ici ont recommandé que le CRTC s’abstienne de prendre position sur la certification du contenu canadien généré par l’intelligence artificielle, compte tenu du cadre juridique et réglementaire encore en évolution. Nous sommes en fait respectueusement en désaccord avec cette position. Comme nous le soulignons dans notre mémoire, le CRTC, au contraire, doit accélérer son examen de cette question et établir une position claire.

1010 L’utilisation de l’IA comme outil par les créateurs canadiens est déjà en cours à différentes étapes de la production. À ce titre, l’utilisation de cette technologie ne devrait pas, en principe, rendre une production inadmissible à la classification canadienne.

1011 Afin de trouver un équilibre, le Canadian Film Centre, le NSI et L’inis recommandent que le contenu généré par l’IA soit admissible à titre de contenu canadien uniquement si :

1012 ‑ Le contrôle créatif et éditorial est exercé à toutes les étapes par des humains, et par des Canadiens, tel que prescrit par le système de points;

1013 ‑ que le contenu généré par l’IA est protégeable par le droit d’auteur, conforme à la Loi sur le droit d’auteur du Canada et à la Loi sur l’intelligence artificielle et les données, qui n’est pas adoptée dans les faits, là, mais qui a été reportée; et

1014 ‑ que la source des textes et des données utilisées pour entraîner le modèle d’IA est suffisamment transparente aux yeux des titulaires des droits pour garantir le consentement et la rémunération des contributeurs des données d’entrée pour s’assurer qu’aucun droit des tiers n’est enfreint.

1015 L’alternative ‑‑ refuser le statut de contenu canadien aux œuvres qui utilisent l’IA ‑‑ obligerait les créateurs canadiens à s’abstenir d’utiliser ces outils ou à identifier et à certifier séparément uniquement les parties non générées par l’IA de leur travail. Ces deux scénarios sont irréalisables et nuiraient à la capacité des créateurs canadiens de financer, de produire, de vendre et distribuer leurs œuvres dans un marché structuré.

1016 Suivre le rythme de l’innovation en matière d’IA ne se limite pas à l’adoption de lois, de politiques ou de règlements. Cela exige un financement, un financement qui soutient le développement des compétences, l’expérimentation et l’intégration éthique dans les flux de travail créatifs.

1017 Et l’industrie y est prête. À titre d’exemple, en juin ‘24, L’inis a lancé un cours de formation d’introduction qui a jusqu’à présent attiré plus d’une centaine de personnes occupant différents postes. Nous avons également récemment offert un cours, « Approuver les outils d’IA en audiovisuel, de l’idée au concept », pour lequel plus d’une quinzaine de personnes se sont inscrites. Si nous voulons que les talents canadiens soient compétitifs à l’échelle mondiale et que notre contenu reste authentique et axé sur l’humain, alors, les investissements dans la formation ne sont pas facultatifs, ils sont urgents.

1018 Merci.

1019 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Alors, merci beaucoup pour vos soumissions. Merci aussi d’être venus ici. Comme vous avez dit, vous représentez des organisations qui sont dans trois provinces différentes. Alors, merci.

1020 I will turn things over to Commissioner Paquette to start the questioning from the CRTC. Thank you.

1021 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui, merci. Merci beaucoup et bienvenue à tous.

1022 I would start my question by discussing about the idea of a fund dedicated to training that you proposed. You presented it in your written intervention. I saw you presented it at the contribution hearing and said it was not successful, and I understand that you are bringing this idea back in this proceeding. Is that correct?

1023 Yes, okay. Can you briefly remind us, just in order to push forward the idea, how your institutions are, first of all, financing their activities? And also, how you see this fund? Who would administer it? Would other institutions be eligible? And give us an idea of the level of funding that would be necessary.

1024 MS. BAILEY: Our three organizations are not currently funded to the level that we should be at the federal level. That’s why we’ve made this request. That’s why we’ve joined forces as a trifecta, to actually elevate the discussion, that we are the three largest national training institutions in this field and that we are not currently funded by the federal government. We put in a request for 20 million dollars to be divided between the three organizations over a three‑year period. It doesn’t seem like a lot, but it seems like it’s been lost, so we will keep on hammering about it and letting people know that, for the amount of people who have come through all three of our institutions, and what they deliver to the audio‑visual fields, it’s astounding.

1025 And I actually think it’s ‑‑ well, it’s obviously a misstep at the federal level, so we’re hoping that these hearings will help rectify it.

1026 Jean?

1027 M. HAMEL : J’ajouterais que, effectivement, on travaille les trois institutions ensemble. Puis l’idée de créer un fonds auquel on aurait accès nous permettrait de développer encore davantage notre collaboration.

1028 Le Canada, c’est un grand pays. Nous, on est à Montréal, une institution francophone. C’est sûr qu’il y a également des francophones dans d’autres provinces que le Québec. Il y a des initiatives ponctuelles qui existent pour rejoindre ces clientèles‑là de notre part. Mais les moyens manquent de la part du gouvernement fédéral pour qu’on puisse effectivement avoir une action plus structurée sur l’ensemble du pays.

1029 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Donc, je comprends que ce serait un fonds dédié à vos trois institutions et non pas ouvert à davantage de programmes en audiovisuel?

1030 M. HAMEL : C’est qu’à l’époque… si l’absence de financement fédéral est une réalité aujourd’hui, c’est qu’il existait à une autre époque un programme dans lequel nos institutions étaient financées et qui a disparu. Donc, on peut jouer sur la terminologie en termes de fonds, de programmes ou quoi que ce soit, mais il est clair que le besoin de nos institutions est de retrouver de la part du gouvernement fédéral par les mécanismes qui peuvent être mis en place un accès à du financement adéquat pour répondre à nos objectifs puis répondre adéquatement à la population canadienne, aux gens qui veulent effectivement développer leurs compétences dans le domaine de l’audiovisuel.

1031 MS. KLECKNER: I would just like to add that, at the National Screen Institute, we rely strictly on grants that we receive from other funds. We don’t have any operational funds at this point. So, because we don’t have any federal support, our grants are limited in what we can put into programming because we have to also use it to run our institution.

1032 And I will say that we are all oversubscribed in the number of people that are applying to our programs, and we don’t have the resources to train as many people as we should be, and that is one of the reasons that we’re seeing a gap in the pipeline in terms of having the workforce ready here to do the work.

1033 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you. And thank you also for your suggestion and thoughts on the notion and definition of ‘showrunner’, which is, I find, very useful. My first question ‑‑ et je pourrais la poser en français. Est‑ce que vous voyez une différence entre la définition d’un showrunner en anglais, pour le marché anglophone que pour le marché francophone?

1034 M. HAMEL : Je le savais que la question allait être posée. Effectivement, puis on a eu cette discussion entre nous, le poste de showrunner, du moins, de cette terminologie‑là n’existe pas au Québec. J’ai pris la peine de vérifier avant de venir ici. Je dis : « Bon, showrunner »…

1035 Effectivement, il y a une différence dans la façon… de la terminologie du rôle des personnes. Malgré que cette position‑là spécifiquement, cette terminologie‑là n’est pas employée au Québec. Moi, je n’ai pas… j’acceptais d’être solidaire de la position qu’on développe parce qu’on parle d’une personne qui est à l’origine ou qui participe au développement du contenu.

1036 Donc, si quelqu’un participe au développement du contenu, pour nous, il est important que son rôle soit reconnu dans les points canadiens.

1037 Toutefois, pour avoir justement parlé avec des gens du milieu de l’audiovisuel, c’est clair que l’ajout d’une fonction, celle‑là ou d’autres, la crainte qui existe, c’est que ça dilue certaines fonctions principales.

1038 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui.

1039 M. HAMEL : Alors, tout est dans la nuance, dans la manière dont le CRTC va élaborer ses directives au niveau du pointage si, effectivement, il y a un changement qui est apporté pour s’assurer que l’ajout de fonctions soit tellement spécifique par rapport… le rapport au contenu que ça ne permette pas de diluer l’importance des trois fonctions de base, là, qui sont les scénaristes, les réalisateurs, les producteurs.

1040 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, basically we’re saying that it’s not a term that is much used in Québec, but we have a few other intervenors from the anglophone market who are also saying that it’s a term that is not much used in the industry. So, how would you respond on your side to these comments?

1041 MS. BAILEY: Well, obviously, anybody who is ‑‑ we want people who are Canadian to be in charge of the show, to have that clear vision, and that’s what we are considering a ‘showrunner’. We currently train at my institution writers, directors, producers, editors, actors. They all work together. They all develop a show, but somebody has to drive the bus, and that’s what we’re looking at as the showrunner. Somebody is in charge of that overall creative vision from beginning, middle, and end.

1042 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And in your experience, are showrunners usually equally involved in the financial and creative decisions of a production? And, for example, if a production has a showrunner and a director, who makes the final creative call? And similarly, if you have a showrunner and a producer, who makes the financial calls? So, do you believe that the creative control rests with the showrunner, or elsewhere?

1043 MS. BAILEY: Well, I’m going to go out on a limb and believe that it is the creative control. Somebody does have to drive the bus. There are people ‑‑ there are creative producers, there are producers who do the fundraising and raising the funds ‑‑ but I do believe that you need that one ‑‑ or two, if they’re working as partners ‑‑ that vision that will drive everything home.

1044 MS. KLECKNER: I’ll just add that that, regarding the role of the showrunner and finances, that from my experience and from what I’ve observed in the industry, typically a showrunner holds the great creative vision and works very, very closely with the key creatives and the team to pull off the vision. But that does not come without the expertise of understanding what a budget looks like and understanding the limitations of a budget and how to work with it in the best possible way.

1045 So, while a showrunner will obviously be working very closely with producers and executive producers on some of those number pieces, they hold the key to the creative vision, and they really, really champion the vision of a project that maybe a producer, who is looking at only the numbers, might not have as much attention on. And it’s really important that that creativity flourish, but that is not at all to diminish the responsibility and expertise of a showrunner understanding how a budget works.

1046 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Merci. Maintenant, pour vous, monsieur Hamel, peut‑être une question sur l’intelligence artificielle, dont vous venez de nous parler.

1047 Vous suggérez des lignes directrices en matière d’approche. Et vous suggérez notamment que ça ne doit pas devenir un critère d’inéligibilité comme tel. En d’autres mots, ce qu’on comprend, c’est qu’il y a un niveau qui est acceptable. Je vous demanderais : comment on mesure ce niveau‑là? Comment est‑ce qu’on s’assure d’avoir une idée claire de ce qui est acceptable et ce qui n’est pas acceptable dans une production?

1048 M. HAMEL : Bien, c’est dans le troisième élément, là. Parce que c’est un outil. Nous, on le voit comme un outil, qui existe déjà beaucoup dans plusieurs productions. Les effets visuels, c’est un… l’intelligence artificielle est utilisée depuis déjà de nombreuses années.

1049 Là, il y a une arrivée massive dans d’autres fonctions. À l’écriture, au développement de certains contenus, développement d’images. Je pense que c’est dans la référence qui dit : quels sont les éléments qui alimentent l’intelligence artificielle à partir desquels un travail créatif est fait? Il doit y avoir une traçabilité. On doit savoir l’origine des informations entrées pour éviter de se retrouver comme des situations qu’on a entendues aux États‑Unis où certains comédiens, leurs voix ont été reproduites sans leur autorisation.

1050 Alors, c’est sûr qu’il y a un travail réglementaire, d’encadrement et d’éthique à mettre en place. Puis ça va être un travail qui va être exigeant. Par la suite, l’adoption de ces règles‑là, est‑ce qu’elle va être uniforme à 100 pour cent par tout le monde? Il y aura probablement des gens qui vont réussir à passer outre ça, mais je crois qu’il est important qu’il y ait un cadre réglementaire clair qui soit établi par rapport à ça parce que le train avance. Si on laisse les choses aller sans donner un cadre spécifique sur la manière de considérer l’apport de l’IA dans la production audiovisuelle, on va rater le train.

1051 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Et je comprends donc que c’est plus une approche éthique qu’une approche de proportion comme telle du sujet.

1052 M. HAMEL : Exact. Parce que, à un moment donné, c’est impossible de chiffrer exactement la proportion. À partir du moment… Je ne sais pas, plusieurs d’entre vous l’ont peut‑être déjà expérimenté, pour préparer des documents, pour préparer un argumentaire, il y a un aller‑retour où, à un moment donné, le produit fini, qui l’a développé?

1053 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Um‑hum.

1054 M. HAMEL : L’important, c’est que le contrôle créatif éditorial doit être exercé par un humain. C’est là qu’on doit aussi s’appuyer. Mais, à la fin, le produit a fait tellement l’objet d’allers‑retours entre la machine et l’humain qu’on ne peut pas dire  : « Bon, bien, là, c’est 30 pour cent. » Je ne crois pas que ce soit possible de pouvoir arriver à établir un pourcentage précis.

1055 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Um. Puis est‑ce que, si on pousse votre approche, est‑ce que le contrôle de l’IA devrait être fait par un canadien et inclus dans une définition de contenu canadien? Si on…

1056 M. HAMEL : Oui. Oui. Évidemment, dans le contexte dans lequel on est, on parle de créateurs canadiens qui utilisent l’outil. Je veux dire…

1057 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Donc, de facto, ça...

1058 M. HAMEL : Oui. Oui.

1059 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Très bien. Merci beaucoup. Pas d’autres questions.

1060 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Excellent. Merci beaucoup. Alors, je vais céder la parole à notre vice‑président. Merci.

1061 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks.

1062 So, you spoke about the value of spending on training, but how does that compare to other potential types of expenditure? Is a dollar spent on training more or less beneficial to the Canadian system than a dollar spent on commissioning programming or supporting discoverability? What’s the exchange rate we should be using?

1063 MS. KLECKNER: That’s a really big question. (Laughs) I think it comes down to having a cultural voice. I think that, if we ‑‑ you know, I was just commenting to someone earlier about how hard things are right now for this industry, but that I feel very lucky to do the work that I do because I see very young, excited minds coming into this, and they have so many ideas, and they have such strong voices, and they have unique voices. But if we don’t have an industry for them to step into and share those stories, we’re not going to see them.

1064 And I don’t know what it is exactly we’ll be commissioning if we’re not training up this next generation to have very strong, confident projects and works, and have room to explore, learn, and master the craft of storytelling for the screen. And, you know, we just heard it from the Shaw Rocket Fund in terms of why we need to have content for children and that that needs to come from a Canadian place. We just heard from the deaf community that we need to start earlier, we need to be in schools. And it really is that that is the training. It’s starting from a very early age and bringing people in, or else I’m not exactly sure what we’re left with. But I hope it’s not commissioning projects that are created by Americans.

1065 Thank you.

1066 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. So, perhaps we could turn things back over to you, to offer any concluding comments. Thank you.

1067 M. HAMEL : Je voudrais…

1068 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Absolument.

1069 M. HAMEL : Je consultais un document parce que je voulais également répondre à… Je vais donner des chiffres qui sont spécifiques à la production audiovisuelle au Québec. Mais, en 2022‑23, les chiffres qui ont été produits, c’est que c’est une industrie d’une valeur de 3.2 milliards, en incluant à la fois la production des maisons de production étrangères qui viennent tourner au Québec, la production indépendante, la production audiovisuelle par les diffuseurs. On parle d’une industrie de 3.2 milliards.

1070 Alors, si une industrie de 3.2 milliards juste au Québec ‑‑ puis je n’ose pas imaginer, je n’ai pas les chiffres pour le Canada ‑‑ ne peut pas investir quelques millions dans la formation des gens qui doivent travailler dans cette industrie‑là, il y a un problème à long terme, là, par rapport à alimenter la culture canadienne avec des productions audiovisuelles qui sont créées, conçues par des Canadiens.

1071 MS. KLECKNER: Okay, I’ll offer closing comments.

1072 So, Madam Chair, Vice Chairs, Commissioner and CRTC staff, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today, and for your thoughtful attention to the urgent issues facing Canadian content creators.

1073 We’ve come before you as a united front, three institutions from across the country, because we believe deeply in the promise and power of Canadian talent. From coast to coast to coast, we train the writers, directors, producers, and showrunners because creative voices are shaping this industry.

1074 We cannot ask them to lead the future of Canadian storytelling without first investing in their foundation. Training is not an optional add‑on; it is the very infrastructure that supports certification, content creation, and cultural sovereignty. We urge the Commission to recognize showrunners as essential creative leaders within the CanCon certification framework; allocate a dedicated portion of the Canadian programming expenditures to training and talent development, ensuring that equity deserving regional and emerging voices are not left behind; establish a clear and forward‑looking policy on AI, one that safeguards Canadian editorial control while allowing for responsible innovation.

1075 Together, our institutions represent a powerful national network. The data speaks for itself: over 80 percent BIPOC participation in several CFC programs; 38 percent of L’inis participants identify as racialized; 69 percent of NSI participants are Indigenous. All three institutions show strong representation from women, 2SLGPTQ+, and people with disabilities, and our reach spans urban, rural, and remote communities from across Canada.

1076 This is not just an argument for policy reform; it’s a vision for the future of Canadian content ‑‑ one where our stories are created by us, reflect all of us, and are exported proudly to the world. And let us not miss this moment. Let’s build the next generation of Canadian creators, not by accident, but by design.

1077 Thank you.

1078 THE CHAIRPERSON: What a great way end. Thank you so much. Thank you for being here with us today. We really appreciate it.

1079 Back to you, Madam Hearing Secretary.

1080 THE SECRETARY: Thank you very much. We will now hear the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations, which are coming in the room right now.

‑‑‑ Pause

1081 THE SECRETARY: Please introduce yourselves for the record, and you may begin. You need to press on the grey button. Perfect.

Présentation

1082 MS. EDWARDS: Good afternoon ‑‑ good morning, not quite afternoon ‑‑ Chairwoman and Commissioners.

1083 My name is Cathy Edwards, with the Canadian Association of Community Television Users and Stations.

1084 MR. SAVAGE: Thank you, Cathy. My name is John Savage, and I am the President of CACTUS, and you may have seen me also as a representative on behalf of the Ontario Library Association at other hearings.

1085 MS. EDWARDS: This consultation is ostensibly about reconsidering the definition of Canadian program and how to support the Canadian audio‑visual sector. We were therefore gratified at paragraph 1 in the Notice of Consultation to read that the Canadian broadcasting system is composed of various elements that support the creation and distribution of Canadian programming, but then disbelieving to find that the consultation nowhere mentions the community element, its contribution to Canadian content, nor how to support it.

1086 This is particularly concerning to us, given the vital role of the community element to find in the Act at section 3(1)(d), (o), (p), and (s), and the ministerial directive to the CRTC which recognizes the exceptional importance of community broadcasters to the achievement of the other goals of the Act, and that the CRTC should ensure that they are sustainable.

1087 Further, the Notice stipulates that, through this proceeding, the Commission will determine how to facilitate a financial support ecosystem that encourages a variety of business, broadcast, and distribution models, and to ensure that Canada’s diversity is reflected. Yet, no questions solicit public input regarding the not‑for‑profit, community‑owned business model, despite the fact that the community elements is the single largest and most cost‑efficient contributor to diversity within our broadcasting system. Supporting minority voices is the community element’s express mandate.

1088 Our remaining comments focus primarily on funding, since virtually a hundred percent of content created at community TV and radio stations are Canadian by definition. They are made by local residents, almost exclusively about local topics. The public Notice of Consultation discusses PNI and CPE used to calculate expenditures by broadcasters on Canadian programming. It does not mention the contribution BDUs have been similarly expected to spend on local expression over the years, a.k.a. community television.

1089 As we detailed in our submission to CRTC 2023‑138, CACTUS requests that this percentage be paid into a community access media fund to support not‑for‑profit, community‑owned TV stations because: very few cable community TV stations that remain are truly civic, diverse, innovative, or citizen‑driven; second, most of the 150 million that was earmarked for community TV prior to 2016 was diverted by the CRTC to prop up legacy news networks, yet Canada’s news deserts have expanded even faster, in part because hyperlocal and cost‑efficient cable channels previously served areas that public and private broadcasters could not; and finally, community media is needed to provide rural and remote communities, as well as urban minorities, with a platform for free expression.

1090 These mandates and their importance are clear in the updated Broadcasting Act. The percentage that Canadian BDUs and foreign online undertakings should contribute to community TV should be the same, for a total of at least 70 million, in order to restore the sector to its predigital transition size. That was over 250 stations.

1091 John?

1092 MR. SAVAGE: In addition, a comprehensive strategy must be developed with Indigenous nations, of which there are over 600 spread across more than 3,000 reserves, so that they too can develop media skills and culturally appropriate programming in their own languages.

1093 Call to Action 14.3 in the Truth and Reconciliation Final Report states that the federal government has a responsibility to provide sufficient funds for Aboriginal language revitalization and preservation. And subsection (4) states that this mandate is best managed by Aboriginal people and communities themselves. What better way to answer these calls than by enabling our first peoples to create their own local media?

1094 With regard to questions 27 through 36, issues of measurement, it is a well‑known management principle that what can be measured can be changed. A major reason that BDU stewardship of community television backfired is that there has been so little public transparency about how funds are spent. We suggest a specific way to remove the lid from this black box is within our submission.

1095 By contrast, we had proposed to Canadian Heritage to produce a baseline report regarding the health of not‑for‑profit community media sector. We have experience collecting and analyzing this data as administrators of the Local Journalism Initiative program and the Canadian Journalism Collective. Part of producing the baseline report will include measures to evaluate success so that, if the report is produced yearly, we can track improvements in coverage and access.

1096 We thank you for listening and welcome your questions.

1097 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for your presentation today and your submissions. I will turn things over to my colleague Commissioner Naidoo to start with the questions for the Commission. Thank you.

1098 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. Thanks so much for being here today.

1099 MS. EDWARDS: Absolutely.

1100 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I think it’s an understatement to say that the broadcasting world has changed a lot in the 21st century. And of course community television is not immune to that. It used to be traditionally seen as really hyperlocal content that offered a really, you know, grassroots training ground for up‑and‑coming talent.

1101 How do you see the future of community television today? And I guess specifically I’m wondering do many Canadians still rely on it? Is it still being used as a training ground for newcomers to the profession? Or do you think that people are getting their content from other streams such as Internet, radio, if you could just tell us your thoughts on that.

1102 MS. EDWARDS: Absolutely. There’s a few layers to your question. One is the way we see community TV is actually we talk among ourselves more about community multimedia centres. So if a community, for example, a northern community where you’re from, wanted to offer radio, television, like teach virtual reality, teach people how to build business websites, it could all be delivered under one roof, potentially by public libraries where there is no longer infrastructure, the cable infrastructure is gone. That’s why we’ve partnered with the OLA in the past.

1103 So we don’t see it necessarily as just TV. We see it as multimedia, and fluidly so. So many of our members are online only. Some still have over‑the‑air licences; some still give content to cable companies; and some are on satellite. So it’s a multimedia and multiplatform mix.

1104 It’s still totally a training ground. So for example, under the Local Journalism Initiative, some of the recipients that CACTUS gives grants to on behalf of Heritage have as few as 500 households. And so these are tiny communities where we’re actually having to train journalists because they don’t necessarily want to move from big cities. We’re finding like newspaper journalists who were giving kind of remote coaching and, okay, well, how do you add video to your website now to make it multimedia? So yes, we do it with professional dollars to pay them, but where they exist, volunteers are still getting training there.

1105 So while it’s true that in theory anyone can, you know, shoot a video on their phone and upload it to YouTube, there’s nobody in small communities making civic content like the local new crunchers there. There’s nobody teaching people what does disinformation and misinformation look like. That can happen at the local level with not‑for‑profit boards that are answerable to the community as a whole.

1106 So who’s teaching seniors how to use, you know, TikTok? Who’s going to funnel, you know, kids from instead of becoming the Kardashians of tomorrow, becoming local civic actors that are making stories about real things that are happening? So the training may be different, but it’s just as ‑‑ you know, digital media literacy is more important to function in Canada in the 21st century than in the 20th. I think that was the last piece of your question.

1107 MR. SAVAGE: I have a couple other points here.

1108 Another thing we notice with the Local Journalism Initiative program, and you see this reported in mainstream media as well, is that there’s a lot of retiring journalists out there that are in these communities that can be tapped. And a lot of them are interested in continuing their career but more on a ‑‑ you know, involved in the community as well. So we’ve had some of these people, for example, Life on Gabriola Island is one Local Journalism Initiative site, where they have journalists working with the journalists that we’ve put into place.

1109 The other issue too is that this is an excellent opportunity to train citizen journalists. As my other hat with the Ontario Library Association, we’ve been pushing for years to have public libraries as a matrix that you could build community television upon as well. And in conjunction with librarians’ mandate, which is to promote media literacy, which they did with the Community Access Program successfully from about 1996 to 2012, one of the federal government’s most effective media programs ever, they were able to start that process. So this vision that CACTUS and OLA has together is a way to expand that success into media.

1110 The other thing too is hyperlocal versus a larger territory. With Indigenous communities, quite often their territory is their community. So that territory could be expansive, such as my ancestors, it went all the way from Lake Simcoe up to Lake Nipissing, which is one of the largest territories around that. So a reporter there or a community centre could actually serve the needs of that broad, broad base.

1111 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you.

1112 MS. EDWARDS: There was one piece that we didn’t answer, sorry, which is that while yes, it’s true, you can shoot a video on your phone and upload it to YouTube, the audiovisual technologies keep changing. So three of the things that CACTUS has recently ‑‑ in fact, I went back to school to learn how to do this myself and got a master’s in civic media ‑‑ was in how communities can use virtual reality as a tool of engagement, how they can use augmented reality, and how they can teach kids to build videogames that have, again, a civic engagement piece to them. So teaching and enabling communities to understand how new technologies can be put to work for the community, not just as a, you know, commercial download for kids to disappear into the basement with a headset.

1113 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. So you talked a little bit about Indigenous communities and the territory that they have to cover and how it may be bigger, but we’re talking about one community in that instance. We’re seeing changes to community television that we haven’t seen before. Funding issues we’ve seen before. What we’re seeing now is the possibility of some of those community stations having to cover not just their community but more than one community, maybe, you know, a portion of a province or something, not just one community like an Indigenous community, so other challenges.

1114 So my question, bearing that in mind, is: is community television in today’s reality assessing and meeting the needs of individual communities? When you see that some of the pressures that they’re under is to have to cover more than one, are they offering Canadians information that communities cannot get any other way?

1115 MS. EDWARDS: So we need to distinguish here, because it sounds like you’ve been thinking about cable community channels when you talk about regionalization, which was an issue recognized in the last community TV hearings. So those are BDU community channels have elected to regionalize service. So they’re not really community channels anymore because when you have one, say, production facility in a massive region, people from that whole region can’t access that facility. And typically, content’s being made primarily by staff and piped out over the whole region. So the answer is that model can’t fill the need.

1116 That’s why we advocate a not‑for‑profit community model, where members of those individual communities can step up to the plate and provide hyperlocal service like they used to. The cable model doesn’t work anymore. It’s been regionalized due to media ownership concentration and fibre optic interconnection of what used to be small, tiny, hyperlocal cable systems. The infrastructure doesn’t exist anymore.

1117 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that. In your intervention, you propose a community access media fund which Canadian and foreign undertakings you say would contribute to. But foreign streamers ask why they should be paying into funds that they simply can’t draw upon. Right? You’ve heard that. And so the question is: is it fair? Is a system like that fair? How would you justify that arrangement to foreign streamers?

1118 MS. EDWARDS: So the original rationale for asking BDUs, cable companies, originally to contribute community channels was that they were ‑‑ back in the day, it was considered a licence to print money. Everybody wants access to TV. Everyone wants access to TV from south of the border. So to balance that, we want to enable communities to be able to make some of their own local content. So their subscription dollars are flowing out of their community, they should be able to expect some local content in return. And that’s equally valid today, even more so with foreign streamers.

1119 MR. SAVAGE: And content is king. You just can’t allow an algorithm to choose the content for you. One of the issues for community media is that you want to be able to access local content. And otherwise, you’re going to be going outside of your region for that content. And as Timothy Snyder recently ‑‑ he’s the famous author who just moved to U of T from the States ‑‑ said that hyperlocal community media is very important to asserting your sovereignty and also to protect democracy because it also ‑‑ when you can’t call up a mainstream media source to cover a story, for example, that’s your only source to do it. It’s one way of keeping mainstream media in check and helping to diffuse the disinformation argument that mainstream media is the enemy of the people.

1120 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. We’ve discussed quite a bit. You’ve discussed quite a bit here today; you’ve discussed in your intervention about how community television is at risk; however, some might counter that argument, and I’m sure you’ve heard this from others, that programs and services are simply finding their audiences in a different place. They’re finding their audiences online. And leveraging online platforms to reduce costs and increase distribution is what some of them are doing. So in your opinion, are community services and programming adopting online platforms effectively in the 21st century to reach local audiences of all ages?

1121 MS. EDWARDS: Absolutely. So our members, as I mentioned earlier, are available on satellite, on cable, online, and some are still over the air as well. So and one of the problems with the BDU community channel model was originally they were only on cable, and then the CRTC kind of half got it right and that as satellite got into the market, yeah, they should somehow contribute to community TV too. But they were allowed to have their own VOD services, and so you had multiple BDUs taking that tiny percentage of the subscription revenues and offering competing community services, which didn’t make any sense. If it’s supposed to be a local civic platform, everyone has to have access to it. So once upon a time, with cable at around 80 per cent penetration, it was almost true.

1122 So just fractured community channels haven’t made any sense for a long time, which is why there needs to be a fund to which all BDU dollars contribute, and then communities that need it can ask for it to have, you know, one platform where the resources are ‑‑ there’s enough to have a presence in every little community, as you said.

1123 MR. SAVAGE: And I’ll speak as a former librarian with the federal government helping to design media monitoring systems like news desk, news manager. These are content aggregating systems that help the government and its policy analysts develop policy for the Canadian government, for example. So I used to train my users, the policy analysts in the minister’s office that, you know, media is like an intelligence network out there if it’s properly aggregated and you can have the right search tools.

1124 Right now, I would say that these early generation online streaming systems that hide behind their algorithms are not meeting the needs as well as they could for intelligence gathering and to develop the intelligence that we need to run our government, for citizens to make the decisions that they need to make.

1125 So that’s one of the issues that the CRTC are ‑‑ maybe not in this hearing, but in other hearings ‑‑ to look at, because we really need to hold their feet to the fire to improve these systems. And if we don’t do it, they’re not going to do it on their own. Their systems are profitable as they are and serving their needs, but maybe not ours.

1126 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So are you saying that you think that the audience has gone or that the audience has just shifted? And do you think that there’s a place for people to get information from online sources as well as community television stations? I’m thinking in terms of like fire situations, disaster situations ‑‑

1127 MS. EDWARDS: So our over‑the‑air stations, the terms of their licence require them to pass on that data just like commercial and public broadcasters. Many of our members, when there’s been fires, for example, in northern B.C. and Alberta, they were ‑‑ in fact, the fire chief of the CHET TV station, he’s deceased now, but the former fire chief was also head of the community TV station because it was so vital that that kind of information get out.

1128 So they’re often the ‑‑ CHCO TV in New Brunswick was the first on scene in all the New Brunswick fires last summer. Global TV, CTV ended up picking up and using their footage. So that’s another reason why it’s so important that there’s hyperlocal stations that are near to these events occurring and can inform people and get it out to regional networks.

1129 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So are you saying that they should be existing together, then?

1130 MS. EDWARDS: What should be existing together?

1131 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: That online and community stations should be existing together in order to disseminate information.

1132 MR. SAVAGE: I would say yes, because I mean we look at the Cabin Radio situation with the forest fires. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that, but it was well publicized in the media, just look it up. There was one community that was completely shut down during the fires because their fibre‑optic cable was burned. And so their only way of getting information was from stations like Cabin Radio if not Cabin Radio themselves, so over the air.

1133 So if you’re going to maintain or even attain cultural sovereignty over the North, for example, you really need multiple different ways to communicate with those regions. It’s very important for us as Canadians to actually have cultural sovereignty. If you’re not making ‑‑ if content is being heard, local content, is there even a local presence there? I mean, that’s a question for our defence and national security.

1134 MS. EDWARDS: Commissioner Naidoo, I just wanted to add I didn’t quite understand your question, as if you were contrasting ‑‑ you said do we need both online and community media. Community media are online. So are you referring to ISPs when you say that?

1135 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I’m just wondering, because we’re talking about traditional community stations being at risk and how some people are actually moving into the online space ‑‑

1136 MS. EDWARDS: So traditional community TV stations are gone. So let’s be clear. So the not‑for‑profit entities that CACTUS helps launch and supports through programs like the LJI are the new online multiplatform multimedia model as fast as we can help them financially and they can find models to do it. So there is no traditional community media. It’s audiovisual media that responds to the needs of now.

1137 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for raising that. Thanks. I didn’t phrase that question properly, but I did get the answer that I wanted, so I really, really appreciate it, thank you.

1138 MS. EDWARDS: Yeah.

1139 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I want to move on to news. You talks about news deserts. You mentioned it in your intervention. You mentioned it also in your written, just now. You talk about news deserts expanding partly due to widespread closures in cable community channels which previously served many of those areas that public and private broadcasters simply just could not; right? So can you talk about the presence of news on community channels and how this news is held to established standards like the various broadcast codes widely imposed on the broadcasting system?

1140 MS. EDWARDS: So, typically, so historically, the channels you might be more familiar with, cable community channels tended to do weekly news magazine programs. And if you’re thinking of smaller communities, if you put out a half an hour, an hour of, you know, local news in a small community, that was great. They tended to have a different longer format.

1141 So for example, if you’re in a community of a few thousand people, whereas like when we think news, and we have in our minds a half‑an‑hour newsreel with little two‑to‑three‑minute segments, typically it’s a big city format. People don’t have much time. They don’t know the players in the news. They’re just seeing little snippets about the sports highlight, the health highlight, the, you know, the one sound bite from their local MP or the mayor.

1142 In smaller communities, typically, A, people want more information, so instead of just sending your crew out and spending a half day to a sporting match and you come back with two minutes that shows up on the nightly news, a local audience will want to see the whole game. Or if you have a half‑an‑hour discussion with the health minister or a local health representative, instead of having a two‑minute, you know, extract, you might want to have the whole discussion so that people understand the issue fully.

1143 So typically, it tends to be more in‑depth hyperlocal news content, more like what we might think of as civic affairs. It takes longer to look at it on a public or private broadcaster. But they’re also capable of doing short‑hit news when they want to. So for example, a lot of the LJI recipients that we have, it’s kind of an opportunity for them to go back to their roots in that originally community TV was viewed as an important civic platform. So for example, town council meetings, before they were streamed, used to be available on your community channel.

1144 So many of them are covering issues in long format, so they’ll spend their day, and they’ll go, you know, do a half‑an‑hour, an hour interview with a local official, who’s usually like on the floor thankful to have more than a sound bite that can reach their constituents and local audiences. But then they’ll often at the end of the week package and take those longer formats into a news magazine to summarize what happened this week. So it’s kind of a combination. And they have a huge amount of freedom because they have 24/7 access to the airwaves.

1145 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Right. But news isn’t just about that. So I’m wondering about the actual established standards and codes that are in existence, not just longer‑form journalism, the things that go along with it like ethics, like sourcing and having multiple sources that can back up ‑‑ those kind of journalistic standards and the rules around them ‑‑

1146 MS. EDWARDS: So we follow ‑‑ all the LJI recipients follow those standards. And both CACTUS, as a representative from the community TV sector, and the Radio Fund of Canada from the community radio sector ‑‑ actually, because community TV and radio typically don’t historically have had the resources for like editors‑in‑chief, those two associations administering the LJI money have provided publishers that review the content before it’s put to air to make sure that it does meet those standards. And it’s been an invaluable part of the training function. As I mentioned before, a lot of the LJI recipients are in tiny communities where there was nothing. And so, you know, we’re having to train skills in situ to meet those standards. So yes, we do, when that’s what’s required.

1147 MR. SAVAGE: And a lot of these people are pretty well skilled, so but they may just have a little support in different areas. So the training helps to round them out in general. If you look at the recent elections coverage that CACTUS’s studios covered, it was quite extensive. And a lot of the politicians, both Indigenous and non‑Indigenous, have stated that having that kind of coverage was invaluable and they felt that they were treated fairly.

1148 MS. EDWARDS: That’s true. There’s a section on the ComMediaPortal.ca is where you can find all the LJI‑funded community TV content, and there’s a tab for 2025 elections, if you want to take a look.

1149 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that. Thank you very much. Those are all my questions. I’m sure my colleagues have some as well. Thank you.

1150 MS. EDWARDS: Thanks for your time.

1151 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

1152 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much, and thank you for being here. Perhaps a broader question: how do you think changing the definition of Canadian content has changed things for community television? I’m trying to understand whether the issue that we are discussing here is where the money is flowing to, or it’s a Canadian content definition issue, or is it both.

1153 MS. EDWARDS: It’s not a Canadian content definition issue, although I have personal, you know, concerns about that. As I mentioned at the beginning, community TV and radio tend to be virtually a hundred per cent Canadian anyways. It’s made by local people about local events. So the definition isn’t really going to affect our operations. That’s more a kind of a commercial issue where we’re having to hold people’s feet to the fire to do enough. That’s our mandate, to do hyperlocal programming.

1154 So for us, the way we read the consultation was we need to look at the definition of CanCon and how is that going to affect funding. So we focused on the second question because the first one isn’t affecting us really. We’ll continue to be an engine for hyperlocal Canadian content.

1155 MR. SAVAGE: However, there is the issue of Indigenous communities that straddle the border or traditional territories that straddle the border as well, whether it’s the Métis homeland, for example, or Akwesasne. And these areas, so you may have somebody living, you know, one family member on one side of the border and one on the other side within the same community. And when they create content, it’s not given the same categorization, let’s say, as Canadian content, even though they’re part of the same community. So that’s one issue there that ‑‑

1156 MS. EDWARDS: And that’s actually affected the CJC. There’s at least one Indigenous community that applied to the Canadian Journalism Collective, and there’s an issue because their headquarters is on the US side, even though the Canadians are consuming the content on the Canadian side.

1157 MR. SAVAGE: That might have been Akwesasne, actually, because the radio station was on the American side of the border, and even though it served the whole community, they weren’t eligible to apply for the funding through the Online Streaming Act, so.

1158 MS. EDWARDS: Yeah, so there’s a few that cross the border ‑‑

1159 MR. SAVAGE: Even though some of the programs were probably being created by people on the Canadian side of the border within that community.

1160 MS. EDWARDS: Yeah, it went with the address.

1161 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great, thank you very much. Thank you for answering our questions. We would like to give you the final word. Thank you.

1162 MS. EDWARDS: Oh, wow. I don’t if I necessarily have anything to add, just that we ‑‑

1163 MR. SAVAGE: Well, I would just say that, you know, paraphrase James Carville, who said “It’s the economy, stupid” in an election. I think for community TV, the secret of expanding Canadian content and asserting our sovereignty is “the funding, stupid” argument.

1164 You know, it’s we’ve seen the sector shrivel through past Commissions making decisions to divert funding that would have helped to build non‑profit community media. It’s gone to such funds as the Canadian Media Fund, which we celebrate their work, but if you look at how community media has eroded through the years, it’s basically it’s the CRTC that’s done it. And right now we’re in a vulnerable state.

1165 And when you look at community media and the Canadian content that comes out of Canadian media from an intelligence‑gathering standpoint alone, let’s say, with news, this is content with AI technology in the future that’s going to be very important to understanding what’s happening in our backyards.

1166 I know back in 2000, the politicians back then were very concerned about the lack of content coming out of their communities. They didn’t understand what’s happening in their own backyard. I talked to a Conservative MP last year or two years ago, and he was saying that it is a concern for him too. The only article I could find out about what he was doing was actually a community media journalist who did a profile on him. So that’s an example. There’s the forest fires. There’s the security aspect. In terms of the cultural aspect, this content is very useful to develop new talent, new and emerging artists coming out of there. But it’s also good for asserting the local culture as well, whether it’s Indigenous or non‑Indigenous.

1167 MS. EDWARDS: My last comment, because you didn’t bring it up, might be on the diversity question is that often community ‑‑ we’ve been mostly talking in this back‑and‑forth about community media that serves smaller under‑served communities in news deserts, but it also plays a vital role serving diversity in big population centres where voices can’t get on mainstream television. So the first LGBTQ+ program in Canada was on Calgary community TV back in the ‘70s, you know, way before OutTV or anybody else was thinking about it. So it’s not just Indigenous, it’s diverse voices in big population centres as well. They get to have their own voice and not be reported about. So that’s super important.

1168 MR. SAVAGE: And even just in the National Capital Region, we have a dearth of local content coverage. None of the mainstream media and none of the BDU‑supported media are covering the major issues.

1169 For example, we have flooding issues again this year on the Ottawa River ‑‑ not one story covering that in detail and the need of the community. Personally, I had to try and reach out to the media ‑‑ no response whatsoever. This is not unusual. It’s a national security threat, flooding. It’s affecting people very locally. And on that issue alone, it proves that we need more community media, because if there was community media, I could just go down even as myself and make a story and have it put on the air or online so that other people can be aware of those major concerns.

1170 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to CACTUS for sharing your views with us. Thank you for having a discussion with us about these important issues. I will turn things back over to the hearing secretary. Thank you.

1171 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

1172 We will take a lunch break and be back at 1 p.m.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 12 h 17

‑‑‑ Reprise à 13 h 00

1173 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We’ll now hear the presentation of Accessible Media Inc.

1174 Please introduce yourself and your colleague, and you may begin.

Présentation

1175 MR. ERRINGTON: Thank you. Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, Members of the Commission, Commission staff, my name is David Errington, and I am the President and CEO of Accessible Media Inc. With me today is Kevin Goldstein, our outside regulatory counsel. We will now begin our presentation.

1176 AMI is a not‑for‑profit media company that operates three 9.1(1)(h) services dedicated to establishing and supporting a voice for the more than 6.2 million Canadians with a disability, representing their interests, concerns and values through accessible media, reflection and portrayal. Twenty‑six (26) percent of our workforce identify as having a disability and, in the past year, over 725 people who have a disability worked on productions we’ve outsourced to independent producers.

1177 AMI welcomes the opportunity to appear before you today as the Commission continues its review of how to modernize the regulatory framework that applies to both Canadian broadcasting undertakings and streaming services. The Notice of Consultation addresses several issues, including how to define what qualifies as a “Canadian program” going forward, expenditure requirements for both traditional Canadian broadcasters and online undertakings, whether and how to address the use of artificial intelligence by audio‑visual creators and broadcasters, and reporting and performance measurement.

1178 The programming on the AMI services and, more specifically, its two audio‑visual services, consists almost entirely of Canadian original productions. We do not believe that the changes the Commission has proposed to the points system, if adopted, would impact the status of the programs AMI produces or commissions. Our only concern with the Commission’s proposal is that we want to ensure that CAVCO certified programs still qualify as Canadian, as tax credit eligibility remains an important component of financing Canadian programming.

1179 In addition, in the Notice of Consultation, the Commission asked how a modernized expenditure framework can support content created by and for equity‑deserving groups. While ensuring channels like the AMI services are sustainable is paramount, we also note that certain funding bodies, specifically the CMF, could do a better job of prioritizing programming produced by these groups. Although the CRTC does not oversee the CMF at present, the factors the fund uses for its performance envelope program work against companies like AMI and our envelope is shrinking, even though we are investing significantly in original Canadian content.

1180 With respect to artificial intelligence, AMI does not use AI in its productions but is investigating ways in which it can be used to make programming more accessible. On the issue of data, reporting and compliance, as the licensee of 9.1(1)(h) services that benefit from a regulated wholesale rate, we believe that how we’re meeting the mandate authorized by the Commission should be a matter of public record.

1181 The remainder of our presentation is devoted to what expenditure requirements should apply to standalone streaming platforms, the changes to the broadcasting landscape that have occurred over the last decade and, more specifically, cord cutting driven by the emergence of online streaming services, are dramatically impacting the long‑term viability of Canada’s public interest services.

1182 9.1(1)(h) services rely almost exclusively on wholesale fees from BDUs to operate. Those rates are set by the Commission and are fixed. Therefore, as subscribers decline, so do our revenues. AMI’s services now generate $3.6 million less than they did in 2016 or 11 per cent of our total revenues, not adjusted for inflation, which would make the numbers even higher. This trend is likely to continue especially if, as expected, Canadian BDUs move more towards internet‑based delivery.

1183 In recent years, AMI has been forced to significantly reduce costs to counter declining revenues, including fundamentally changing the way in which it commissions Canadian programming. We also reduced our employees from 120 down to 64. These decisions have stabilized our operations for the short term, but what AMI and other 9.1(1)(h) services really need going forward is additional funding to offset revenue that is lost when Canadians cancel their BDU subscription.

1184 Unfortunately, the amendments to the Act do not provide the Commission with the authority to impose a 9.1(1)(h) type order on online undertakings or virtual BDUs. What the Act does allow is for the expenditure obligations to be imposed on online undertakings for the purpose of supporting services that are of exceptional importance to the achievement of the objectives of the Canadian broadcasting policies, such as the AMI services. In fact, the Policy Direction issued to the Commission by the government in November 2023 specifically mandates that broadcasting undertakings of this type should be supported.

1185 In Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2024‑121, the Commission attempted to balance numerous competing priorities in setting initial base contributions for online undertakings. Support for services of exceptional importance was not one of these areas chosen. However, it is essential that 9.1(1)(h) services receive funding from online undertakings in addition to existing BDU contributions going forward.

1186 By definition, the role 9.1(1)(h) services play in the system will not be met without regulatory support. With BDU revenue declining and more and more Canadians moving online, these services are already struggling to meet their public interest mandate. If additional funding does not materialize, it’s only a matter of time before these channels are no longer sustainable.

1187 While the government provided short‑term funding to support 9.1(1)(h) services while the Commission modernized its policies, this funding is set to expire this year and did not come close to making up the lost BDU revenues. A better approach would be to require standalone online undertakings and virtual BDUs to contribute a certain percentage of their revenues to a fund to support services of exceptional importance that would then be divided on a pro‑rated basis according to the size of the undertaking. That way, as Canadians continue to migrate online, lost BDU revenues will be offset.

1188 In closing, we’d like to highlight that 9.1(1)(h) services play a critical role in furthering the objectives of the Act and it is crucially important that the necessary protections are put in place to ensure their long‑term viability.

1189 We’d like to thank the Commission for allowing us to appear before you today and we’d be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.

1190 Thank you.

1191 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your comments and thank you for being here with us today.

1192 I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Paquette.

1193 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you. And welcome to both of you.

1194 So in your intervention, you suggest that foreign streaming services should fund services of exceptional importance. I will come to the details of your proposal shortly, but before I have, I think, a broader question.

1195 We have some intervenors that are asking for stronger video description incentives or requirements for the broadcaster in the online services. So can you tell us ‑‑ if video description becomes broadly available, can you tell us how you see the role of AMI TV and how you see yourself as playing a role of exceptional importance in the Canadian landscape if TV becomes widely accessible for visually impaired people?

1196 MR. ERRINGTON: Right. We’ve already made that switch to ‑‑ when the Commission mandated that all services in primetime must have description, so in theory the majority of Canadian content in Canada now has description with it.

1197 So at that point in time, we pivoted to creating original content that’s reflective and positive portrayal of people from the disability community. So we have award‑winning shows like “Vestière” or “Employable Me”, whatever it may. And we are currently creating on the English side, about 100 hours of original content as reflective of the community and on the French side, about 60 to 70 hours of original content.

1198 So as in the Act, the update of the Act says there needs to be a role for a person with disabilities and a mandate to have them portrayal within the broadcasting system. I believe it’s our role to fill that and we’re doing that through our original content productions.

1199 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you.

1200 And Bell also suggests the creation of a fund that would cover the entire cost of the services in exchange of what the monthly wholesale rate would be eliminated and, according to their proposal, the broadcaster and the online services would then distribute your services for free and you would have access to some financing through the fund.

1201 Can you tell me, what are your thoughts on this proposal, and does it differ from yours regarding this fund?

1202 MR. ERRINGTON: Sure. I’ll start and I’ll pass to Kevin in a moment.

1203 Right now we’re losing between three and four percent of our annual revenues because of BDU declines, so it’s a big number and it’s constantly decreasing year over year. If that trends continues, we’re no longer sustainable, so something has to change. And we have a proposal how we see that change occurring, and I’ll let Kevin explain that.

1204 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thanks, Dave.

1205 I think the difference between our proposal and the Bell proposal ‑‑ there’s a few differences, but the most germane one is we are proposing that BDUs continue to fund 9.1(1)(h) services in their regulated traditional BDU operations as they do today and that streaming services and virtual BDUs, which a number of traditional BDUs are moving in that direction, would then direct money from those operations to a fund so there’d be two components.

1206 Bell’s proposal is that it would all go into a fund, so traditional BDUs, virtual BDUs would all have the same contribution mechanism. I think we can probably ‑‑ I don’t know that there’s huge differences between those two. I think for us, the important thing to remember or the most important point we’d like to make is that there needs to be a set amount of money and it shouldn’t necessarily be finite. I think that’s one of the other ‑‑ it was unclear when I read the Bell proposal, but it seems to suggest in the Bell proposal that, you know, you’d identify an amount of money and that would be capped, essentially.

1207 I think for 9.1(1)(h) services and AMI services specifically, but I think this applies more broadly, the objective should be to grow what they’re doing, not necessarily say, okay, well, here’s an amount of money in a box, do your best. I think that what we would want is, as revenues continue to migrate from the traditional system to the online world, that the money would grow and it would give broader opportunities for AMI and APTN and CPAC and other services to do more with those resources to help broaden their mandate that’s been given.

1208 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And I understanding it wouldn’t make a big difference if the money goes directly to a fund or if paid as a wholesale rate.

1209 MR. ERRINGTON: Ultimately, if AMI gets $30 million from two buckets or gets $30 million from one bucket, it’s still $30 million.

1210 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And another suggestion would be that rates paid for the distribution of your services count toward Canadian programming expenditure. What are your thoughts on this proposal?

1211 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I don’t think we have a strong view one way or the other. I think that’s largely a BDU issue for them and I’m sure that would take money away from other places, but for us, I don’t know that we have a strong view on that one way or the other.

1212 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So Canadian ‑‑ CPE instead of a fund, you would also be open to such an idea.

1213 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, I think the proposal that was recommended by ‑‑ I think that was Bell who made that suggestion ‑‑ would allow them to deduct from the money that they pay to the CMF, so it would be essentially the Canadian contribution for the BDUs, which isn’t technical CPE, but I guess it is Canadian programming expenditure.

1214 MR. ERRINGTON: I just want to add to that. I think the bottom line is for the last five years we’ve imagined revenue decline and making some hard decisions to manage that revenue decline. What we require and you determine to bring that to us is long‑term sustainable funding so that we can grow and expand upon our mandate. That’s the ideal that we want to get.

1215 So whatever levers that the CRTC or government puts in place to make that happen, we’ll deliver on that.

1216 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And by the way, we will have much more occasion to discuss about the 9.1(1)(h) services in the next hearing on marketing dynamic, but it’s still an occasion and since it’s related to financing, there’s still an occasion to ‑‑

1217 MR. ERRINGTON: We’re always happy to come and visit.

1218 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And are there any other ‑‑ in your view, any other regulatory tools that should be ‑‑ that the Commission should consider that could support your service or 9.1(1)(h) services?

1219 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I think the reality that the AMI services and other 9.1(1)(h) services deal with on a day‑to‑day basis is there’s really only three ways in which you can fund these services. One is through BDU contributions or regulated wholesale rate, which, you know, is declining as subscribers decline, and so you can achieve more revenue through that through a rate increase over time, there’s a fund, which is one of the components we’ve recommended today, or there’s government funding. Those are really ‑‑ the advertising market will never really materialize for these services by definition, so those are the three potential buckets.

1220 Right now, we have the BDU revenue. We’re hoping a fund will be contributed to by the online players and there was short‑term government funding, but that was intended to be an interim measure. I think we’d love to see that be permanent as well, but ‑‑ you know, and I think that ‑‑ I don’t think it’s a zero sum game. I think our view is, is that we’d prefer to have funding from all three of those sources.

1221 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And now that the core of, I would say, your mandate is based on creating content, programming, do you see any occasion to partner with other stakeholders in the industry or to make some international partnerships to extend the reach of your programming?

1222 MR. ERRINGTON: Sure. We’ve done that already. We’ve had programming partnerships with Radio Canada and CBC. We’ve done partnerships and bought formats from the BBC, so that’s already happening, and we want to create great content, evergreen content, that’s of high quality that’s relevant to the disability community and we’ll partner with whoever wants to help us fulfil that mandate.

1223 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And maybe one last question.

1224 You state in your intervention that Canadian broadcasters and foreign streaming services should contribute proportionally to the Canadian ecosystem. Can you elaborate on how the Commission should measure how each player should contribute? How can we measure what’s proportionate and equitable contributions?

1225 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I think they play different roles and I think there’s ‑‑ within the Canadian world, there’s programming undertakings and distribution undertakings and, within the online world amongst the Canadian players, there’s players who look a lot more like a programming undertaking and those who look a lot more like a BDU. And then there’s foreign streaming platforms. And I think the big difference between the two groups, if you put Canadian in one bucket and foreign in the other, is that for Canadian services, this is their primary market. In most cases, it’s their only market in which they’re operating, and so they have employees here, operations are committed to the communities, they’re doing different things. It varies by service in terms of what that contribution is to the system.

1226 Obviously, a local television station makes a different contribution than a niche specialty service than a BDU. But the big difference is, is that for them, this is their business. It’s here.

1227 With respect to the foreign streaming platforms, Canada’s an add‑on and the ‑‑ often the employment in Canada is limited or non‑existent and what they’re doing for the Canadian market is just a bolt‑on option that is gravy, for use of a better word and ‑‑ or lack of a better word.

1228 And you know, those services have benefited for some time from a lack of regulation and a lack of contribution requirement and that’s having a direct impact on everyone in the system, not just 9.1(1)(h) services.

1229 So from our ‑‑ I think it’s kind of a hard question to answer and I don’t envy your position, but it’s a hard question to answer because of the variety of different types of undertakings and what they do. So local television station, obviously news is a massive component as to what they contribute and maintaining operations in local markets is a huge contribution they make to the system.

1230 A streaming platform would be different, you know, in terms of what they do, and I think perhaps even more streamlined in terms of looking at it, you know. The contribution those services make, I think, can be better measured in dollars versus perhaps what traditional Canadian undertakings do.

1231 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you. No more questions.

1232 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Commissioner Paquette. Thank you.

1233 We are going to go over to Commissioner Naidoo. Thank you.

1234 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi. Thank you so much for being here.

1235 In your presentation today, you talked about experimenting with AI. Can you tell us a little bit about what you think the possible benefits and possibly the dangers of using closed captioning to provide accessible content and how it may be different in the English and French language markets?

1236 MR. ERRINGTON: Right. We’re just beginning to dabble in the potential of AI, like everybody is. It seems to be the thing of the day. And we would use AI to help enhance our current accessibility tools, so our current use of description, our IDB, embedded description, we would use AI to improve upon that.

1237 Same thing with captioning and potentially with ASL and QSL.

1238 The issues around that are twofold. It’s not our intention to do it less expensively. It’s our intention to enhance it and do it better. So any way that we would use AI to help us with accessibility tools and our content, we would make sure that (a) we took it to our panel of 3,500 people from the disability community to make sure that they recognize the enhancement. It’s not seen as different. Get their approval of that. But I think it’s an opportunity to do what we do better and to expand upon what we do, and we’re going to investigate those ideas.

1239 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

1240 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

1241 We will go to Vice‑Chair Scott.

1242 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: (Off microphone / sans microphone)

1243 MR. ERRINGTON: We actually do a lot of our own research within the disability community in Canada, so we know what their programming preferences are, for one. We know which platforms and social media platforms they’re using over other platforms, so we have a good handle on that with our own internal research.

1244 I think over ‑‑ and the underlying assumption of that is that people from the disability community want to consume content just like any other Canadian does on their platform, on their device, on their time.

1245 So is there anything that we’re lacking or missing from ‑‑ I can’t think of anything at the top of mind. We did mention CMF and funding.

1246 I think there should be a priority made for content that has ‑‑ from the disability angle or from different broadcasters of importance. The weighting system should help us because we kind of get penalized for that.

1247 I’ll give you the example. We’re not beating up on CMF. They’ve been great and generous. But our envelope is declining and the reason for that being is the pivot that we’ve made to original content production, so we’re no longer acquiring content from CBC or Radio Canada. Like we had shows like “Heartland” or “Murdoch Mysteries”, and they would get big ratings for us, but they were irrelevant to our community. They can get them elsewhere.

1248 So we decided not to invest in that programming any longer and take those ‑‑ that funds and invest it into content that’s relevant to our community, content that we produce ourselves or outsource to independent producers. They don’t generate the audiences of a “Heartland” or of a “Murdoch Mysteries”, so in that case our envelope declines because the audience measurement ‑‑ overall audience numbers are lower. But in reality, we’re doing the right thing to serve our community. So that’s something we could look at, for sure.

1249 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, great. Thank you. And thank you for providing that granular example in response to that last question.

1250 We will turn things back over to you for any concluding remarks. Thank you.

1251 MR. ERRINGTON: Sure. Thank you.

1252 I just want to kind of summarize where we’re at. AMI, in our opinion, is a great success story, one that as Canadians we should all be very, very proud of. There’s no other network like it in the world despite the fact that 25 percent of the Canadian population identify as having a disability.

1253 AMI’s service makes extraordinary contribution to the achievement of the objectives of the newly updated Broadcasting Act. AMI provides a voice for Canadians with disabilities through authentic storytelling, representation and positive portrayal. In partnership with Canadian producers, we have created award‑winning shows that are created for and by the members from the disability community. I’ll give you an example of that.

1254 Over the past year, AMI has created employment opportunities for over 725 Canadians from the disability community to participate in the creation of content and be represented within the Canadian broadcasting industry both onscreen and offscreen. I’ll give you a granular example of that.

1255 We have a show called “Squeaky Wheel” where 100 percent of the people who participate in that show, both onscreen and offscreen, identified as being disabled.

1256 Twenty‑six (26) percent of our full‑time workforce consists of members from the disability community. We have strategies in place to continue to grow that number.

1257 And finally, in order to continue our joint success, we need long‑term consistent funding model, and the best approach is the creation of a fund for services of special importance such as ours. Long‑term sustainability will allow AMI to continue to be a proud success story for the Canadian broadcasting system today and well into the future.

1258 Thank you for your time.

1259 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to AMI.

1260 THE SECRETARY: Thank you very much.

1261 We will now connect via Zoom to Nathalie. We will now hear the presentation of BIPOC TV & Film.

1262 Can you hear me well?

1263 MS. YOUNGLAI: I can hear you. Can you hear me?

1264 THE SECRETARY: Yes, we can. Thank you.

1265 Please introduce yourself and you may begin.

Présentation

1266 MS. YOUNGLAI: Thank you.

1267 Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Thank you for inviting me to speak today.

1268 My name is Nathalie Younglai. I am the founder of BIPOC TV & Film, which was founded on the mission of elevating indigenous, Black and racialized creatives in front and behind the camera in the Canadian TV and film industry.

1269 We have over 13 years of experience giving workshops, training, mentorships, support, networking and database resources specifically for BIPOC folk in the screen industry. It is with this deep history of helping BIPOC creatives, producers and crew, from emerging to mid‑level and senior, that we speaks to the Commission today.

1270 I am also a fiercely‑Canadian screenwriter who has worked on multiple live‑action and animated shows, such as “Coroner” and “Magic School Bus Rides Again”, on the major Canadian broadcasters and streamers. I owe my career to the previous Broadcast Act. It is the Programs of National Interest and CPE that compelled the broadcasters to make the Canadian shows that gave me, as well as many other BIPOC creatives and crew, a pathway to careers in this sector in Canada.

1271 The new Online Streaming Act must ensure the next generations of Canadian BIPOC creators get a chance to do the same, so we strongly urge the Commission to maintain and strengthen its Programs of National Interest. We support ISO’s stance on PNI, as well as their position that a portion of CPE obligations be dedicated to indigenous dramas, comedies and documentaries.

1272 Protecting PNI is how we keep building the infrastructure and deepening our talent pool for creating TV series here. Strengthening PNI and CPE is how we compete on an international scale, by investing in creating and making our unique and specific Canadian stories told by, made by and owned by Canadians. In particular, with historically underfunded and underrepresented BIPOC stories, we advocate for a 30 percent equity CPE in alignment with the CBC licence provision, at minimum, recognizing the many intersectionalities our communities hold. We propose additional incentives and points if a production is BIPOC‑owned or BIPOC‑created for PNI.

1273 In addition, we urge the Commission to create an engagement group for equity‑deserving communities, similar to the Official Languages Minority Communities Discussion Group, for representatives of equity‑deserving communities to meet regularly and have direct dialogue with the CRTC to share knowledge and feedback.

1274 BIPOC TV & Film urges the Commission to ensure there are regulatory policies in place to strengthen the Canadian TV and film industry and enshrine in the next generations of Canadian storytellers by ensuring the point system reflects the importance of Canadian key creatives at the helm, so we welcome and support the CRTC’s preliminary addition of showrunners, as defined by the Writers’ Guild of Canada, to the key creatives. There is a growing pool of trained and highly qualified BIPOC showrunners and senior writers in Canada, some who have gone through our showrunner training programs.

1275 Further, we advocate to make it mandatory that the key creative positions must include a Canadian director and writer, as they are the authors of the work. Otherwise, having a Canadian writer as optional steers the creative industry down the misguided path of becoming primarily a service‑based one. BIPOC TV & Film recognizes the call for flexibility for BIPOC producers and BIPOC‑owned companies, but maintains that there is an inherent flexibility in the existing six out of 10 and proposed expanded to nine out of 15 points system with that 60 percent baseline. We argue that Canadian BIPOC key creative talent already exists here and that the talent pool deserves opportunities to work, develop, grow and more opportunities to step into leadership positions and shine.

1276 What the tariff war has shown us is that, as Canadians, we have to value ourselves and our industries in all our rich diversity and unique ways of being Canadian, whether it’s born, landed immigrant, refugee or on the way to obtaining PR status. As regulators of the screen industry, the question to ask is: do we want our Canadian cultural industry to be like the auto sector who only assemble and make parts here or do we want our Canadian screen industry to grow and shine as being distinctly Canadian‑created, Canadian‑owned and Canadian‑made, to tell, sell and own our own stories?

1277 Thank you for letting me appear today. I’m happy to take any questions you may have.

1278 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you for injecting some of your own personal experience into your submissions. We really appreciate that.

1279 I will turn things over to my colleague, the Vice‑Chair of Broadcasting, Madam Théberge. Thank you.

1280 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much Nathalie. I’m Nathalie, too, so a meeting of the minds perhaps.

1281 Thank you for your intervention and very detailed, very concrete proposals. It’s something that we particularly like. I have quite a few specific questions, so I’ll start.

1282 You mention in your intervention that:

“The Commission should include exceptions to its certification criteria under exceptional circumstances where storytelling requires a creative with a specific ethnicity, disability or gender identity.”

1283 I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on this proposal and, in particular, how those exceptions could be applied objectively and what it would look like.

1284 MS. YOUNGLAI: I think I would actually like to correct the word “exceptions”. I think to put it within the framework of PNI and CPE would be a stronger way of kind of putting it into context. I think that if the production meets the points and then there’s additional, you know, representation from diverse or equity‑deserving groups, then that could be an additional incentive that plays into it.

1285 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: So you’re talking more about an incentive rather than a requirement. Am I understanding correctly what you’re saying?

1286 MS. YOUNGLAI: I think there needs to be both. I think that within the points system there could be a 30 percent baseline for equity‑deserving groups. Then, within that, if a production exceeds that, then there would be additional incentives. There definitely needs to be a baseline.

1287 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: How do you think the Commission should handle self‑identification issues? I mean we’re very conscious and we’re certainly hearing a lot of calls for less regulatory burden, less red tape, making things simpler. How would you recommend that we deal with something that can become quite touchy, such as self‑identification?

1288 MS. YOUNGLAI: I would defer to the groups that are already kind of in the industry and doing that sort of thing, such as ISO has some, has kind of come up with some policies around that, and REMC, as well as there is the persona ID that people have to fill out when working on productions. Those are good tools to use.

1289 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Because one of the challenges that we face is we want to avoid the situation where representatives from the BIPOC communities are just hired because it’s a point or it’s something, you know, like a mark you need to check. How do we go around this situation, which would defeat the purpose of introducing either requirements and/or incentives to enhance diversity on our screens?

1290 MS. YOUNGLAI: Totally, I think it is really important the issue you raise about kind of tokenism or like kind of putting someone in just for the sake of checking off a box. That is a concern as well. I think that part of it is, you know, we’re advocating an equity CPE, similar to what the CBC has in their broadcast licence, where a 30 percent spend is on equity‑deserving groups. Part of that means that those stories are being told by those groups, and I think that would help address some of it, as well as, you know, the numbers are a base number. You can always go above it.

1291 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: In terms of minimum requirements, in your intervention I think I saw you encouraging the minimum requirements for English markets to be better aligned with the minimum requirements for the French markets, but these markets are very different, so what’s the rationale? Why are you pushing for some alignments? Are there specific similarities or trends that you see in both markets that you think should be addressed by the CRTC?

1292 MS. YOUNGLAI: I think what we’re hearing from our community who live and work in Quebec is that it is hard to find work there as BIPOC creatives. The pathway to working on shows there is very narrow and not defined, so we want to support our BIPOC community members who are in Quebec and who are creatives and crew who want to work and provide those opportunities as well.

1293 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: All right.

1294 A question on the PNI approach. As you saw in the ‑‑ are you still there? I’m sorry. I lost you on my screen, so I’m speaking ‑‑ I can see an empty space. There, you’re back. You’re back. Thank you.

1295 As you saw in the NOC, we published a preliminary view that perhaps the PNI should be revisited, maybe there was no longer a need for PNI, which is something that you oppose. In your intervention you state that Canadian stories are at risk, they need regulatory support to encourage production and distribution. You do ask that expenditure requirements for OLMCs, equity‑deserving groups and Canadians of diverse backgrounds be introduced and proportionate to the population.

1296 Could you expand a little bit on your proposal? In particular, are you proposing that proportionality be used only for at‑risk programming?

1297 MS. YOUNGLAI: I think we would realign that to be with the 30 percent equity spend. I think that would be a simpler formula.

1298 What we were trying to get at with that point was just that, you know, the equity groups and BIPOC communities are growing, and growing into the majority and, you know, in fairness, to only see a small percentage represented onscreen or behind the camera is really unfortunate and we need to shift that.

1299 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

1300 On AI, if you don’t mind, what we got from reading your intervention is you’re uncomfortable with the use of AI during the production process, including pre‑ and post‑production, citing that tasks were not numerical, they require nuance. You talked about biased outputs which disadvantage rationalized individuals and other groups historically denied equity. This morning we had a presentation from INIS, the Canadian Film Centre and the National Screen Institute, and they talked about a need for an ethical approach to the use of artificial intelligence as long as the creative control remains with human beings.

1301 I was wondering whether you had thoughts, because the reality is AI is already in the industry. It’s already being used. You know, recognizing that there are still many issues to figure out, including from an intellectual property point of view, it’s a force to be reckoned with. Is the National Screen Institute something that resonates with you, something that could perhaps give a way forward on how to better manage AI in the context of this particular industry?

1302 MS. YOUNGLAI: I think we have to be really cautious about opening that door. Yes, AI is with us. It has already infiltrated our emails, phones and everything, but I think that, you know, having an ethical code of conduct, of course, is a great idea. I think it really needs to be vetted, as well as kind of restrained to certain areas. AI should not be involved in the creative aspects of a show. I understand it for, you know, as the previous presenters were talking about, kind of elevating and increasing accessibility, if that makes sense, but I think once you start veering into the creative aspects that take away those creative jobs and kind of who we are, then that’s pretty dangerous territory.

1303 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

1304 Madam Chair, if I have time, maybe just one last question.

1305 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

1306 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: As you know, in the Broadcasting Act we do have a public policy objective of reflecting Canadian diversity on our screens. I’m also interested in understanding how we can support, within that cultural industry, dialogue in between different groups, whether equity‑deserving groups or the other groups, so I’m interested in your thoughts on how the regulatory system can do both as a means to supporting our national fabric, our national unity and just growing this dialogue in between groups who are living together and should learn about each other. You know, as a very broad, general question, I would be interested in your thoughts on that.

1307 MS. YOUNGLAI: I mean I think these hearings are a great start. I think, you know, having an engagement group for equity‑deserving communities specifically that meets with the CRTC is another great idea. I think part of what makes it not accessible is like some of the language that is used, language not meaning English, but meaning the types of words that are used that are not as accessible as other words. I think it’s a great idea to continue the conversation in a more informal way that helps to inform the CRTC.

1308 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much.

1309 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

1310 We will go over to my colleague Commissioner Paquette.

1311 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you.

1312 Hello, Ms. Younglai. You’ve addressed tokenism in terms of hiring in your intervention, but can we talk about the issue of tokenism in the productions themselves? How do we encourage more diverse portrayals without containing the creators?

1313 MS. YOUNGLAI: Part of that is making sure that the creators and the writers, the showrunners, the directors, the voices who are in the room who are creating the shows, if those voices are BIPOC, if they are from equity‑deserving groups, there will naturally be ‑‑ and if they are in leadership positions there will be that degree of authenticity that I think we are looking for.

1314 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: We see kind of three levels where we can support diversity. There’s the level in our framework, the level of definition, then the level of the expenses, the Canadian programming expenses, and then the level of funding.

1315 In your intervention you agree with the Commission’s preliminary view to not include “cultural element” into the definition, but some interveners, such as ReelWorld that was in front of us yesterday, are in favour of adding certain elements, such as ‑‑ I won’t be able to say that word ‑‑ recognizable locations so the content can be branded to our country to help people who see it understand it’s Canadian. What are your views on this?

1316 MS. YOUNGLAI: I think it’s the funders who have the expertise in making the determination of like kind of the cultural test. I think what we have seen in the past is that historically the idea of Canadian has been used to shut out many communities, so we need to let that idea of what is being Canadian change and that changes with like who is coming into the country, who is working, who is living here. I think we need that kind of openness to thought.

1317 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you. No more questions.

1318 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

1319 At this point, we would like to turn things back over to you to share any concluding remarks with us. Thank you.

1320 MS. YOUNGLAI: Yes. Thank you for your thoughtful questions throughout the hearing and listening to the concerns and realities of people creating and making Canadian TV. We want to make sure there aren’t any loopholes to abuse the system or keep shutting out underrepresented voices.

1321 Our cultural industry is at stake and there are many competing views and interests you are contending with but, under it all, we are all wanting a sustainable industry to create, make and own great, meaningful Canadian TV that is lauded and extoled both here and around the world. At a time when our sovereignty and Canadian voices are being threatened, now more than ever, this is the time to double down and support the Canadian voices which are diverse and inclusive.

1322 Thank you.

1323 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for joining us today.

1324 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

1325 We’ll now connect with Mr. John Ferri.

1326 Hi. Welcome.

1327 MR. FERRI: Hello.

1328 THE SECRETARY: We’re just going to wait to see you on the screen.

1329 MR. FERRI: I have turned on the video and unmuted.

1330 THE SECRETARY: Yes. Just stay there. It’s perfect. We’re just waiting for us to be able to see you on the TVs in the room.

1331 Perfect. We can see you, we can hear you clearly, so we will now hear the presentation of the Ontario Educational Communications Authority.

1332 You may begin.

Présentation

1333 MR. FERRI: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

1334 My name is John Ferri. I am the Vice‑President of Programming and Content for the Ontario Educational Communications Authority, also known as TVO.

1335 I am very pleased to be having this conversation at what I think is a crucial time. The reality is that the situation our nation faces is unprecedented. Current events indicate that the existence of a distinct Canadian culture is more important than ever and that we must act to protect it.

1336 I’m here today to share TVO’s position on what I believe is especially critical ‑‑ on why we believe it’s especially critical to recognize and protect one‑off documentaries and children’s programming in order to successfully meet the objectives of the Broadcasting Act. These genres go deep. They are part of our cultural history and the building blocks of our national identity.

1337 I must say right now that I’m reading from my screen and it has frozen, so I need to apologize very quickly while I try to get this working again. Forgive me. Bear with me, please.

1338 THE SECRETARY: Absolutely. No problem. Take your time.

1339 MR. FERRI: Unbelievable. I’ve been having computer issues all day and this is not perhaps unusual.

1340 I have a colleague here who’s shared her computer with me. Can you still see me and can you still hear me?

1341 THE SECRETARY: Yes. Absolutely, we can see you and we can hear you.

1342 MR. FERRI: Okay. I’m going to say again that the two genres that we’re most interested in talking about today are documentaries and children’s programming. We believe that they are an essential part of our cultural history, and historically have been building blocks to our national identity.

1343 At TVO, we feature a distinctive blend of commercial‑free programming that is unique within Canada. More than 80 percent of our total programming budget is dedicated to Canadian content. More than 85 percent of our foreign content comes from sources outside the U.S. Our main content streams include TVOKids, TVO docs, and our current affairs offerings, such as “The Agenda” with Steve Paikin, and “Big [If True]”, which is a weekly program about disinformation and misinformation, and we think highly relevant at this time.

1344 For TVOKids, our top priority is to provide high‑quality, advertising‑free educational programming for children aged two to nine. All TVOKids’ programming is educational and curriculum‑linked, developed with input from educators, researchers and psychologists, and early‑childhood education specialists. TVOKids broadcasts from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily, representing more than half of our broadcast schedule, and streams content 24/7 on our YouTube and OTT channels. We focus on developing Canadian programming and talent, ensuring opportunities for domestic production companies and producers.

1345 Every single one of our documentaries is also educational, exposing Ontarians to important issues from across the province and around the globe. We are rooted in Ontario but connected to the world. Our documentary division has a strong record of featuring diverse stories that broaden viewers’ perspectives, including underrepresented groups such as Indigenous, BIPOC, and LGBTQ2S+, and racialized communities.

1346 Documentaries make up more than 25 percent of our broadcast schedule and stream 24/7 on our TVO Docs YouTube channel and OTT channels. More than 55 percent of our documentary content is certified Canadian, making TVO a primary source of Canadian documentary programming.

1347 Our collective challenge is that we must contend with an increasingly competitive and fragmented media landscape. That’s not news to anybody who’s listening to this. In this context, TVO encourages the Commission to ensure that any updated definition of ‘Canadian program’ protects and promotes Canadian artists and stories.

1348 The policy framework developed in this proceeding will set the stage for regulatory and funding obligations, notably for Canadian and foreign audio‑visual undertakings operating on traditional platforms or online. It is crucial to ensure that these obligations promote the production and dissemination of high‑quality Canadian content, by Canadians, and for Canadians.

1349 In this context, we know that one‑off documentaries and children’s programming are both risky and expensive to produce, and difficult to monetize, yet they are exceptionally important to achieving the objectives of the Act. These genres need recognition and protection. Documentaries play a crucial role in Canadian culture and must continue to be recognized as a significant aspect of our content.

1350 One‑off documentaries have become increasingly difficult to finance and often come with access and safety challenges. For public media such as TVO, they represent the opportunity to tell complex stories on difficult subjects in ways that commercially‑based media either can’t or won’t. They provide a platform for diverse Canadian filmmakers to explore and express Canadian identity, offering unique perspectives that can lead to real social change. This vulnerable genre should not be tied exclusively to business models that prioritize marketability over impact.

1351 Children’s programming is also crucial to Canadian culture and should be recognized as a significant aspect of Canadian content. Children are our most precious resource. They are our most precious audience, and the values that we represent to them shape the citizens that they become. We must continue to create top‑quality Canadian content for children that reflects the values and culture that we want to impart. We cannot rely on foreign streaming services to deliver content in this regard.

1352 The industry is facing a crisis, as you have heard, with production levels plummeting and financing becoming increasingly difficult. The current crisis is the result of multiple factors, including the rise of global streamer platforms, the sheer volume of content posted daily, and the loss of genre protections. The combination of fewer partners to work with and the potential loss of the Shaw Rocket Fund funding would be devastating to TVO, the production community, and frankly, to our children. We ask that the Commission consider how to protect this vulnerable genre through incentivizing investment and supporting models that increase funding.

1353 The use of artificial intelligence by audio‑visual creators and broadcasters is another important consideration. As AI becomes more prevalent in the production industry, it’s essential to address its impact on content creation and ensure that it’s used ethically and responsibly. We must consider how AI can enhance creativity and efficiency while safeguarding the integrity and authenticity of Canadian programming. While this is a complex topic, our view, at least at this time, is that we ought to focus on who is sourcing the content and using the tools.

1354 Finally, ensuring that the Commission, the broadcasting industry, and Canadians have access to data information is vital to making informed choices about Canadian programs. Transparency, accessibility, and consistency of information will empower stakeholders to support and engage with Canadian content effectively.

1355 In conclusion, we believe that documentary and children’s programming are integral to what it means to be Canadian, especially as our cultural dependence faces increasing threats. These genres are essential to fostering a sense of cultural and national unity.

1356 Thank you.

1357 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for sharing your perspectives with us. I think we have a number of questions here on the Panel, so I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Naidoo, to kick things off.

1358 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you so much for being ‑‑ well, I guess not really being here, but it’s nice to see you on the screen. It’s nice to have you. In your intervention, you say children’s programming is facing a crisis, citing difficulties in financing and also production. But one could argue ‑‑ and we’ve heard some discussion of this this morning ‑‑ I don’t know if you were watching the proceeding, but children’s programming is widely available on various platforms, including TVOKids and YouTube channels as well, and that children’s viewing habits have actually been what’s changed.

1359 So, has financing shifted, in your view, to respond to these changes?

1360 MR. FERRI: Well, it’s shifted, but it’s shifted in the wrong ‑‑

1361 THE SECRETARY: Sorry, Mr. Ferri. You need to bring your mic down.

1362 MR. FERRI: It’s shifted, ‑‑

1363 THE SECRETARY: Up. Perfect.

1364 MR. FERRI: Can you hear me?

1365 THE SECRETARY: Perfect. We can hear you.

1366 MR. FERRI: Okay. But it’s shifted in the wrong direction. There is less financing available and there are fewer partners available because the industry is frankly finding it much more difficult to make the kind of content that we’ve been able to make in the past. But to the ‑‑ I think the earlier point that you were making ‑‑ the content ‑‑ yes, there is an abundance of content that’s aimed at children. What we’re concerned about is the type of content.

1367 The content that we create, as I mentioned in my speaking notes, is really anchored in an educational aspect. It’s meant to be entertaining, it’s meant to be engaging, but it’s meant to be very proactive in terms of the values and ideas that it represents, and frankly, in preparing children for not only the challenges of not being children anymore, but as they progress and grow into the school system, our content in fact follows them on that path.

1368 I don’t think that a lot of the new content, a lot of the abundance of content that’s available now, takes that into account.

1369 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: What about the funding? Did you want to discuss whether financing has shifted in response to those changes?

1370 MR. FERRI: Well, we are ‑‑ you know, as a broadcast entity, we rely very heavily of course on our CMF envelope, but we also rely on the availability of partners, and we are noticing a decline in the number of potential partners that we could work with, both in terms of co‑productions that are windowed, and then we also rely and have relied very heavily in terms of our children’s programming on the Shaw Rocket Fund, and it is clearly at risk. And without the existence of a fund of a similar nature or incentives that would encourage children’s programming, we are deeply concerned about our ability to continue to produce the educational and valued content that we do.

1371 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Do you believe the issues you mentioned ‑‑ production and financing specifically ‑‑ are more related to supply or demand issues, and why?

1372 MR. FERRI: Well, I think, you know, one of the key questions ‑‑ and I believe this is going to be something that will be discussed in greater detail in the next CRTC hearing ‑‑ is the question of discoverability. It is, you know ‑‑ it has been kind of endemic, I think, to the Canadian system that we have been successful in the past in making the content, but getting it in front of our audiences has always been difficult and never more difficult than it is now.

1373 So, anything that helps us in that regard, I think changes the equation to some extent. Yes, of course it is difficult to compete with broadcasters and producers with huge marketing budgets, but that is the purpose of public media, is to find a way of providing the kind of content that they won’t ‑‑ or can’t.

1374 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I just want to dive down into this. If viewing habits have change, and we’ve seen that they have, what’s wrong, in your view, with children getting their programming from online platforms? And does it make a difference if they’re viewing from foreign services or domestic online services?

1375 MR. FERRI: I think it makes ‑‑ well, one, I don’t see a problem with children getting their viewing from online platforms. I think that that is absolutely the reality and we contend with that, and if we don’t, we are not playing in the space, and I think that that’s an absolute necessity. TVO makes this ‑‑ everything that we produce is then presented and posted on our online platforms. We have a very large subscriber base for TVOKids. I think it’s over 270,000 subscribers, and some of the content on it gets tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of views. So, we think that that is a very successful model for us, as well.

1376 In terms of, you know, the second part of the question, whether the foreign source will somehow be as adequate as what we’re producing within a Canadian context, I think there’s some excellent programming that’s produced in other countries. I think that, you know, kind of one example of that would be PBS and their long history, and certainly we’re all aware of the threat that they are currently facing.

1377 But I don’t think that that programming comes with a Canadian perspective. I think that, you know, so much of the discussion in the industry in recent years has been, you know, it’s one thing to make content about a particular subject; it’s another thing when the people familiar with the subject are making the content.

1378 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Well, I think one of the million dollar questions ‑‑ and none of us has a crystal ball, so we’re just going to have to make educated guess, but realistically, I think the elephant in the room is realistically, how long do you think children’s programming on TV will be viable? Should the industry shift to where the audience is now, in your view, which, for all intents and purposes, seems to be online? And you also ‑‑ as part of that answer, you mentioned incentives, and I am wondering if you could expand on what kind of incentives you are thinking about?

1379 MR. FERRI: Well, I think that what the current system allows us to do ‑‑ and it’s a broadcast‑focussed system ‑‑ it allows us to create content that then has applicability online. And without that ‑‑ without something that provides a similar incentive, we won’t be able to ‑‑ nobody will be creating Canadian content for children. So, you know, I’m not sure that answers your question. I don’t have a crystal ball. You know, 10 years ago when I joined TVO, I was told that this was the end of broadcasting and the near future was that there would be no more television. That hasn’t happened. I am not stuck in the mud here, but I do believe that it’s very hard to predict the dynamic.

1380 You can certainly look at the trends, and they have not been favourable. I will fully acknowledge that, but I think it’s interesting, you know, when you go to ‑‑ I was at a conference last week, listening to the head of YouTube Canada talking about the fact that 70 percent of their content is viewed on television screens. Right? So, you know, it’s not like people have completely disassociated themselves with that experience. So, presenting the content in a way that plays to that, I think, is absolutely crucial and still a hope for the future.

1381 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Well, thanks for taking a stab at that without having a crystal ball. I appreciate ‑‑

1382 MR. FERRI: Thank you for that.

1383 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO:  ‑‑ your bravery. You stated as well in your intervention, and I quote here: We cannot rely on foreign streaming services to co‑create and serve up content that is from a Canadian point of view. So, what unique value can traditional broadcasters offer in children’s programming that streaming services cannot deliver? I can repeat the question, because I stumbled there, if you ‑‑

1384 MR. FERRI: No, I think I understood. We are an agency of the Ontario Ministry of Education. Our primary funder is the Ontario Ministry of Education. A huge part of our operation is focussed on creating digital educational components for use in classrooms and online for students who are independently studying. Everything that we do is filtered through that process. It’s filtered through that understanding.

1385 We do not create children’s programming without an educational filter, and, you know, I am not expert on education systems in other countries, but I know something about the one here, and I think that we have certain values and certain perspectives that, if they weren’t in fact being applied, they would not be available from other sources.

1386 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you.

1387 Shifting to our Notice of Consultation for the current proceeding, the Commission did express the preliminary view in that NOC that its current approach to PNI may no longer be needed because such content is driven by online undertakings. What are your thoughts on the Commission’s preliminary view, as stated in the Notice of Consultation regarding PNI?

1388 MR. FERRI: Well, we’ve been very interested in hearing other presenters talk about this, and I think that we do not have a specific proposal at this time, but we hope that the Commission will seriously consider those that have been made by others, particularly TFO and the Shaw Rocket Fund.

1389 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, well, thank you very much for entertaining my questions. I know that my colleagues have other questions as well, so I will hand it over to them. Thank you.

1390 MR. FERRI: Thank you.

1391 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

1392 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you, and good afternoon. So, we spoke at length about children’s programming, which we all feel is an important topic that is deserving of many conversations and serious exploration, and your colleagues from TFO yesterday did talk a lot about children’s programming and the challenges it faces in terms of a very small market, again this morning, the Shaw Rocket Fund. But I am going to react to the gorgeous poster you have on your wall.

‑‑‑ Rires

1393 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: And I am going to ask questions about documentaries in particular, and the importance of documentaries on hard topics. Now, I don’t know if wolves qualify as a hard topic, but I am actually wondering how you define ‘hard topics’. You seem to think that it’s hard to find opportunities to fund such content pieces that would normally or naturally not be funded exclusively through market forces. You also spoke about the difficulties of relying on the interest of foreign streaming services for documentaries.

1394 I’d like to understand a bit better, because for me, that is a niche where Canadians not only have the expertise but have demonstrated over decades how good they are at it. I mean, just look at the numbers of Oscar nominations that Canada has had in terms of short or long form documentaries. So, I’d like to understand where this is a genre that has specific challenges in regards to interest coming from foreign partners. So, I’m just going to keep it open like this because I’d like to better understand exactly. We’ve been talking a lot about kids; I want to talk about wolves, please.

1395 MR. FERRI: Well, this is also a ‑‑ that is a three‑part series, actually. It’s relevant to your question. That was an international co‑production that we were able to do with ARTE in Europe, and some other international partners as well, on the sustainability of the Great Lakes. Basically it was focussed on what is still natural about the Great Lakes ecosphere. That is, you know, a worthy documentary. I’m so glad we did it. It was a three‑parter. It did very well for us in terms of audience.

1396 But there are many documentaries that we do that require not only a substantial financial contribution, but also, you know, the assessment of serious risk. We’ve done documentaries in which the crews ‑‑ Canadian crews ‑‑ have travelled to war zones ‑‑ Afghanistan in particular ‑‑ who have travelled to do very difficult stories where the subjects actually, who are part of the stories, are putting themselves and, frankly, the producers of the documentary at some risk.

1397 You know, these are documentaries ‑‑ we call them ‘POV’, Point of View, because we bring a particular perspective to the story. We want to tell the story in a way that’s very engaging and personal, if possible, but they’re very journalistic. They’re journalistic in the sense that they are rigorous, that they’re fact checked, that they are based on supported facts. That’s not cheap.

1398 That is something that requires an understanding how you do that kind of work, expertise that’s been developed in some cases over years and decades, and I’m not sure that starts to answer your question, but, you know, I will say this ‑‑ I haven’t met anybody in the documentary industry who got into it because they thought they were going to get rich.

1399 That’s not why they’re doing it. They’re doing it because they think that these are important stories and that they need to be told. And a lot of these productions ‑‑ frankly, even the ones that get nominated for Academy Awards, are, if you talk to producers in other countries or, I should say, in commercial media in particular, are so small in budget, they’re surprised that they even get done.

1400 So, it’s a shoestring business. It’s one that requires a lot of personal commitment and passion, and it’s often very difficult to put the financing together because there are always gaps, and we’re seeing that the gaps are harder and harder to fill. And it’s just the reality of what’s out there. And I think in part it’s because, you know, the change is obviously in the content environment, but also in the kinds of stories that we’re trying to tell. We want to do ambitious things, and sometimes they’re very difficult to do.

1401 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: So, is our current system creating incentives for these projects to come to fruition? Is it creating obstacles? Is it structured in a way that these wonderful projects that you just referred to are able to emerge? I’m trying to understand whether, as ‑‑

1402 MR. FERRI: Oh, there’s ‑‑

1403 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ a niche at risk ‑‑ program genre ‑‑ what you would be looking for in terms of a well‑functioning, supportive regulatory regime.

1404 MR. FERRI: Well, we’re looking for anything that leads to more financial support for the kind of work that we want to do. We know that any decisions made by the CRTC have a knock‑on effect on how we are able to actually conduct our business, on the funding, for instance, for the CMF. We rely very heavily on the CMF envelope. It fluctuates on a yearly basis.

1405 Sometimes we are able to provide, you know, a substantial ‑‑ well, sometimes we’re able to do a larger number of projects because we can spread our TV licence out ‑‑ TV budget ‑‑ our licence budget further because we have a larger envelope. And other years, like this one, it’s a little harder to do that. I mean, the reality is that it’s kind of a year‑by‑year sort of challenge, and what we find is that we can never do as many projects as are brought to us that we think are worthy and that would add, in fact, to the Canadian conversation.

1406 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much, and that has worked out to be a great prop that you have behind you. I think that discussion on the wolves will continue.

1407 We would like to turn things back over to you for any concluding thoughts. Thank you.

1408 MR. FERRI: No, I think we’ve covered everything that I was hoping to cover today. I really do appreciate to have had this opportunity, and thank you for the very thoughtful and probing questions.

1409 THE CHAIRPERSON: We very much appreciate your participation, so thank you so much.

1410 MR. FERRI: Thank you.

1411 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a short break. We will be back at 2:15 with the next intervenor via Zoom. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 14 h 10

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 22

1412 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bonjour. Bienvenue. Nous allons maintenant entendre la présentation de l’Observatoire du documentaire, qui comparaît virtuellement. S’il vous plaît vous présenter et vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

1413 M. McCREADY : Bonjour, mon nom est Denis McCready. Je suis le président du conseil d’administration de l’Observatoire du documentaire. L’Observatoire du documentaire regroupe les principales associations audiovisuelles professionnelles ainsi que les institutions, diffuseurs et distributeurs concernés par le documentaire au Canada et au Québec.

1414 Premièrement, je voudrais remercier la Commission de nous entendre. Les enjeux qui nous intéressent qui touchent au documentaire sont très importants.

1415 Je vais commencer par réitérer la posture de l’Observatoire qui a été exprimée dans le document déposé devant cette Commission quant à la protection du documentaire comme « Émission d’intérêt national ».

1416 La protection du quota de documentaires comme « Émission d’intérêt national » est nécessaire parce que ce sont des œuvres médiatiques qui n’ont pas autant de traction naturelle que les autres types de produits audiovisuels, entre autres la capacité budgétaire de faire des campagnes de promotion multiplateforme.

1417 Le deuxième point sur lequel je voudrais ouvrir, c’est les documentaires canadiens dont les sujets demandent un tournage à l’étranger.

1418 Les documentaires sont souvent tournés à l’étranger avec des équipes locales pour réduire les coûts et l’empreinte environnementale, et favoriser l’accès communautaire et l’acceptabilité sociale sur place.

1419 La coproduction n’est pas une réponse à tous les tournages à l’étranger, parce que les délais pour trouver un coproducteur adéquat sont longs et aussi à cause des frais légaux et financiers qui sont associés à la coproduction.

1420 Récemment, les exigences de Téléfilm Canada et du Fonds des médias quant à l’engagement communautaire des projets, qui sont maintenant… ça fait partie maintenant des demandes qui sont faites aux projets documentaires soutenus par ces deux institutions, ces demandes d’engagement communautaire sont difficiles à rencontrer avec les présentes limites sur les postes créatifs clés qui sont imposés par la définition d’un film canadien. On nous demande d’offrir l’intégration des personnes issues de la diversité aux processus créatifs et à la gérance, mais les exigences réglementaires actuelles nous portent à n’offrir que des postes de soutien aux équipes étrangères, des postes subalternes. Et donc, ça, il y a une contradiction, là, par rapport aux meilleures pratiques de décolonisation du cinéma.

1421 De plus, les cinéastes documentaires canadiens qui sont originaires de pays étrangers se voient entravés par les exigences de 100 pour cent de Canadiens pour occuper les postes créatifs clés, parce que, souvent, ils vont souhaiter travailler en collaboration horizontale avec des artisans de leur pays d’origine. Les exigences réglementaires rendent difficile la production d’une première œuvre alors que les institutions comme Téléfilm Canada financent beaucoup d’œuvres de cinéastes émergents issus de la diversité, par exemple à travers le programme « Talents en vue ».

1422 Nous souhaitons inviter la Commission à considérer un critère hybride de définition d’un film canadien en se basant sur, en partie, un contrôle canadien à 100 pour cent des droits d’auteur et de la propriété intellectuelle et donc : une compagnie de production canadienne, une équipe de production canadienne et l’équipe de réalisation et scénarisation canadienne.

1423 Mais nous souhaitons ouvrir, en fait, que les postes créatifs clés soient basés sur un minimum de postes à rencontrer qui permettraient à certains postes créatifs clés qui soient… pardon, que certains postes créatifs clés soient dotés par des non canadiens si le minimum de points est respecté. Au lieu de… Présentement, le documentaire est assujetti à un score parfait. Si un poste existe dans le budget, il doit être canadien. Ce qui n’est pas une exigence faite pour le film de fiction et les autres types de films.

1424 Et, ainsi, en permettant un partage des postes créatifs clés, ça permettrait d’ouvrir, enfin, à ces exigences communautaires demandées par Téléfilm. Et il pourrait y avoir dans cette exigence de partage de postes que le salaire canadien soit le salaire le plus élevé. Mais ça ouvrirait à ce que, par exemple, il y ait des postes créatifs clés occupés, par exemple, comme artiste principal à l’étranger, direction de la photographie, composition de la musique, directeur artistique et monteur image.

1425 Essentiellement, notre posture, c’est d’assurer une cohérence réglementaire, qui s’harmonise aussi avec les postures de notre gouvernement quant à la représentativité des cinéastes et aux exigences environnementales. Et donc, on souhaite que le documentaire soit reconnu comme une production culturelle d’importance, surtout dans une époque où la désinformation est devenue un facteur qui n’est plus exceptionnel, mais qui est un facteur de tous les jours.

1426 Merci.

1427 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup pour votre présentation aujourd’hui. Alors, on va commencer avec la conseillère Paquette. Merci.

1428 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Merci beaucoup. Et bonjour, monsieur McCready.

1429 M. McCREADY : Bonjour.

1430 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Merci de votre participation. Je commencerais par aborder le sujet de la programmation à risque, là, ce qu’on appelle dans le cadre réglementaire actuel la programmation d’intérêt national. Comme vous savez, parmi les objectifs, parmi ce qu’on cherche à accomplir dans le cadre de cette procédure, on cherche à identifier les programmations qui seraient considérées à la fois comme à risque, mais essentielles pour atteindre les objectifs de la loi. Pouvez‑vous élaborer sur les raisons pour lesquelles, selon vous, le type documentaire est d’une importance à la fois essentielle à l’atteinte des objectifs de la loi, mais qu’elle est aussi à risque comme tel?

1431 M. McCREADY : Bien, il y a deux choses. C’est que, dans les derniers 10 ans, il y a eu une réduction importante du financement public disponible pour la production documentaire suite à des changements de réglementation autant au niveau de la câblodistribution que les exigences de contenu canadien. Donc, ça, c’est une chose.

1432 On est dans l’après… Il y a eu une vague de choc, là, autour de 2017 où il y a une réduction massive des financements disponibles aux télédiffuseurs, qui étaient et sont encore les déclencheurs importants pour la production de documentaires. Ça, c’est le premier point.

1433 Le deuxième point, c’est que le documentaire joue un rôle essentiel dans un écosystème où le journalisme est une entité qui est fragilisée. On voit les diffuseurs canadiens avoir de moins en moins de capacités de couvrir des sujets internationaux alors que nos cinéastes en documentaire s’intéressent à ces sujets‑là. Donc, ça, c’est la dimension où le documentaire vient combler un manque.

1434 Et c’est aussi un type de production qui a fait la notoriété, qui fait encore la notoriété du Canada à travers le monde et je ne peux qu’ajouter mon soutien à la définition… au soutien que monsieur Ferri donnait plus tôt, là, de TVO quant à l’importance du documentaire.

1435 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Mais justement, je voulais référer à la conversation que nous venons d’avoir avec TVO au sujet du documentaire. Comme vous savez, le terme « documentaire » est quand même large et englobe…

1436 M. McCREADY : Um‑hum.

1437 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : …beaucoup de types de documentaires. Il y a entre autres le type true crime qui, en tout cas, m’apparaît à moi très, très en vogue comme type de documentaire, mais il y a d’autres genres qu’on vient d’avoir de hard topics, je dirais, comme des documentaires historiques, politiques, animaliers sur les loups. Donc…

1438 M. McCREADY : Um‑hum. Um‑hum.

1439 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Est‑ce que, d’après vous, ce sont tous les types de documentaires qui sont à risque ou est‑ce qu’il y aurait lieu de faire une distinction? Et s’il y a lieu de faire une distinction dans le genre documentaire, où suggérez‑vous de tracer la ligne?

1440 M. McCREADY : Bien, il y a deux aspects. En documentaire, on utilise souvent les termes « documentaires d’auteurs » quand la personne à la réalisation et la scénarisation signent le point de vue qu’on entend dans le film, soit de manière directe par une présence à l’écran, une narration ou simplement une connexion directe avec le sujet.

1441 Donc, le documentaire d’auteur, c’est un terme qui est convenu dans le milieu, qui est compris, mais il y a certains mécanismes de financement, par exemple, auprès des institutions comme Téléfilm et la SODEC, qui le codent et le financent, là, de cette manière‑là.

1442 L’autre dimension, c’est le documentaire de création qui est un documentaire qui va amener un point de vue personnalisé et exploratoire sur un sujet.

1443 Maintenant, l’amalgame malheureux qui est souvent fait avec documentaire, c’est que c’est juste une forme un peu plus compliquée et un peu plus coûteuse que du journalisme. Ça ne l’est pas. En journalisme, il y a encore un gros problème où les médias s’enfargent dans cette définition de l’objectivité et ne sont pas capables de se dépatouiller de ça.

1444 En documentaire, quand on parle d’un point de vue d’auteur, on parle d’un point de vue assumé. On parle d’un point de vue qui est ancré dans un travail rigoureux de recherche factuelle et qui est aussi imputable.

1445 Et c’est une chose qu’on oublie quand on parle de programmation en ligne. On dit : oui, mais la programmation en ligne disponible, par exemple, au Canada à travers les différentes plateformes, qu’elles soient des télédiffuseurs ‑‑ ça, c’est un type de plateforme en ligne ‑‑ ou les plateformes commerciales comme Netflix, YouTube et autres, bien, les plateformes des télédiffuseurs, ce n’est qu’une autre fenêtre des télédiffuseurs qui maintiennent leur imputabilité puis leur responsabilité de diffuseur quant à cette diffusion‑là.

1446 Mais quand on voit sur les plateformes comme YouTube et même, par exemple, Facebook et Instagram permettent des formats de plus en plus longs, il n’y a aucune imputabilité quant à l’intégrité factuelle, quant à l’intégrité économique aussi des projets. Le cinéma documentaire est assujetti à plein de contraintes, de justifications fiscales et financières parce qu’on est financés par des institutions publiques. Il y a des missions d’examen, et cætera, et cætera.

1447 Donc, la protection du documentaire dans le contexte de la télévision canadienne est primordiale parce que, de plaider que les plateformes en ligne peuvent les remplacer, c’est essentiellement laisser un niveau de contenu sans encadrement et sans aucune balise de qualité prendre le dessus strictement par popularité.

1448 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis je vais revenir sur les plateformes en ligne, mais juste pour compléter ma question, est‑ce que vous pensez que le genre true crime de documentaire est un genre à risque qui devrait être soutenu dans notre écosystème?

1449 M. McCREADY : C’est très difficile, le true crime. En tant que président de l’Observatoire, je ne peux pas avoir une opinion éclairée là‑dessus parce que ce n’est pas quelque chose qui a fait l’objet de discussions. Mais c’est sûr que, comme société, il faut qu’on… Je vais me permettre une opinion personnelle, là. Comme société, il faut qu’on se pose la question : pourquoi il y a un intérêt morbide à aller se pencher sur les crimes passés quand certains de ces films‑là, certaines de ces séries‑là, true crime, ne se font pas dans un cadre où il y a même le consentement des personnes impliquées? Et on se cache derrière le fait que ce sont des événements publics pour s’arroger le droit d’en parler puis d’aller remettre ces choses‑là sur la sellette.

1450 En documentaire, on travaille avec un contexte de consentement éclairé très important qui implique tous les participants du film et les gens qui sont souvent les sujets du film, tout dépendant des contextes.

1451 Donc, pour moi, ce serait… je peux comprendre que, de manière… un organisme réglementaire comme le CRTC a besoin de tracer une ligne. Mais, encore là, un documentaire, par exemple, sur un événement criminel passé, qui est l’objet d’une signature d’un ou d’une réalisatrice, qui signe ce film, qui dit : « Bon, bien, moi, j’explore ce sujet‑là, je rouvre des dossiers et j’assume un point de vue », bien, ça deviendrait un film d’auteur.

1452 Ce serait ça le genre prépondérant et ce ne serait pas un film true crime. Parce que, dans le fond, le documentaire d’auteur, il est très, très large et il peut couvrir l’ensemble des sujets.

1453 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. je comprends. Maintenant, si on en vient à la question des plateformes en ligne, je comprends votre position de dire qu’il ne faut pas leur remettre le mandat de produire du documentaire canadien, mais, en même temps, leur modèle d’affaires semble extrêmement tourné vers le genre documentaire. Enfin, on retrouve beaucoup de documentaires sur ces plateformes. Est‑ce que ça ouvre de nouvelles portes pour les documentaristes canadiens? Est‑ce qu’il y a là de nouvelles opportunités pour une plus vaste distribution et une plus grande découvrabilité de nos contenus?

1454 M. McCREADY : Bien, à votre question, la réponse, c’est évidemment oui. Mais encore y a‑t‑il la manière. Et, présentement, les institutions, par exemple, de financement, ne vont pas reconnaître des diffusions sur des plateformes commerciales comme des déclencheurs de financement. Ils vont reconnaître, par exemple, les plateformes des diffuseurs qui sont… qui détiennent des licences du CRTC comme étant des déclencheurs de financement.

1455 Mais imaginons un projet X qui reçoit une licence de YouTube. Je ne connais pas les mécanismes de programmation des documentaires de YouTube. S’ils étaient garantis d’une géolocalisation canadienne pour que le film soit disponible au Canada, bien, ça devrait être considéré peut‑être comme un élément déclencheur.

1456 Le problème des plateformes commerciales, c’est qu’il y a aussi un problème de partage des données avec les cinéastes. Les cinéastes demandent de savoir qui ont vu leur film, combien de personnes ont vu leur film parce que, en documentaire, on ne peut pas jauger du succès d’un film strictement avec le box office. Et des institutions comme la SODEC ont compris et instaurent maintenant un mécanisme pour évaluer le succès d’un documentaire à travers son rayonnement, le type de public et le nombre de paires d’yeux qui ont vu le film. Donc, ça, c’est un élément à considérer.

1457 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Puis ma dernière question : vous mentionnez que les longs métrages documentaires connaissent une baisse de dépenses totales. Est‑ce que l’encouragement, le soutien au partenariat, la collaboration à l’international entre les créateurs canadiens et non canadiens pourrait favoriser les dépenses en documentaire et aussi l’exportabilité? Et, si oui, comment le Conseil, le CRTC pourrait‑il s’y prendre pour encourager les collaborations comme ça, équitables avec des partenaires internationaux?

1458 M. McCREADY : Bien, les mécanismes de coproductions internationales en ce moment sont en place à travers les ententes qui sont signées, là, entre Téléfilm Canada et les différents pays. Donc, ça, il n’y a pas de problème réglementaire en ce moment au niveau de la capacité d’une compagnie de production canadienne de signer une entente de corproduction avec un des pays qui est signataire d’une entente via Téléfilm.

1459 La difficulté, c’est qu’il faut premièrement développer un rapport d’affaires avec des gens dans un pays étranger. Donc, ça, ça demande d’aller les rencontrer. Ça demande de participer à des événements internationaux, d’assister à des présentations de projets, rencontrer des gens. Ce n’est pas comme une plateforme de rencontre amoureuse en ligne, là. Il faut rencontrer la personne. Il faut connaître les capacités de la compagnie de production, que les deux compagnies aient une adéquation au niveau de leur fiscalité, de leur capacité de financement, et cætera. Donc, la production en documentaire n’est pas impossible, mais ça prend énormément de temps.

1460 Et le financement pour soutenir ça n’est pas nécessairement là parce qu’il faut dépenser des argents en traduction, dépenser des argents en voyage, et cætera. Et, souvent, les budgets de développement des documentaires sont relativement modestes parce qu’on favorise de positionner les dépenses vers la personne qui fait la recherche, la scénarisation et la réalisation.

1461 Donc, la coproduction, c’est une belle chose. Mais, en documentaire, quand on parle de budget de 500, 750 000, c’est très, très difficile à harmoniser si on le compare, par exemple, à un projet de… Un long métrage fiction petit budget au Québec, c’est 3.5 millions. Ça fait que vous comprenez que, la différence d’échelle entre un documentaire de 500 000 puis ça, ça fait que ça rend très difficile la coproduction.

1462 Ce n’est pas impossible. Mais, moi, en tant que producteur, pour avoir travaillé dans l’industrie, là, depuis 25 ans, je ne commencerais pas par là à cause du fardeau réglementaire et du fardeau financier que ça implique, là.

1463 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Mais, est‑ce que je peux comprendre de votre réponse que, dans le fond, ce n’est pas au niveau de la définition comme telle de ce qu’est le contenu canadien que vous voyez un problème, mais davantage au niveau du support comme tel et du soutien aux différentes étapes?

1464 M. McCREADY : Bien… Non, non, présentement… Je vous donne un exemple concret. Une réalisatrice canadienne qui scénarise sont documentaire long métrage avec une compagnie canadienne, détentrice d’une licence télé avec un diffuseur canadien, veut aller faire son tournage dans un pays comme le Rwanda ou le Burundi. Dans son film, il y a une performance d’un poète, qui va prendre la parole et lire un poème qui touche à l’histoire politique de sont pays.

1465 Soudainement, cette personne, il faut la payer. C’est un artiste qui performe à l’écran. On ne peut pas pas la payer. Premièrement, ce ne serait pas professionnel de le faire. Cette personne‑là, de facto, devient l’artiste principale du film. Et juste ça, ça contrevient aux exigences de définition du contenu canadien alors qu’on ne va certainement pas prendre un poète canadien et le parachuter au Burundi pour lire le texte d’un auteur burundais juste parce qu’il faut rencontrer l’exigence du contenu canadien.

1466 Et donc, là, c’est une situation où le contexte réglementaire nuit à la créativité des cinéastes.

1467 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Je comprends.

1468 M. McCREADY : Et ce film‑là tourné entièrement dans un pays africain est quand même un film canadien puisqu’il représente le point de vue d’une Canadienne puis que la propriété intellectuelle est détenue par des Canadiens.

1469 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Je comprends. Très bien. Bien, merci beaucoup.

1470 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Alors, on va continuer avec la vice‑présidente. Merci.

1471 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci beaucoup pour cette conversation que je trouve particulièrement intéressante, notamment à la suite de la conversation qu’on vient d’avoir avec votre collègue sur les défis particuliers auxquels fait face l’industrie du documentaire. Je n’aime pas tellement dire « L’industrie du documentaire », mais le domaine, le genre du documentaire.

1472 Et je crois qu’on vous a bien entendu sur ce que vous qualifiez être les obstacles créés par une définition du contenu canadien qui a des exigences qui, peut‑être, ne correspondent pas à la réalité de la production, mais aussi de la ‑‑ comment dire? ‑‑ du processus créatif qui est propre au genre du documentaire.

1473 Ce qui m’amène à me poser la question. Vous n’êtes pas sans savoir que nous avons de nombreux intervenants qui nous demandent exactement le contraire que ce que vous demandez, c’est‑à‑dire qui nous demandent une définition qui est encore plus restrictive, avec un plus grand nombre de postes créatifs obligatoires. Ce qui, encore une fois, c’est peut‑être une conclusion un peu rapide, mais peut‑être créerait encore plus de difficultés pour le genre du documentaire, compte tenu des caractéristiques propres au documentaire.

1474 Ce qui m’amène donc à me poser la question : est‑ce que les points de vue sont réconciliables ou est‑ce qu’on essaie finalement de rajouter tellement d’eau dans une limonade qu’au bout du compte, elle ne goûtera plus grand‑chose? Ou on enlève de l’eau et elle va finir par être trop surette pour les gens qui vont vouloir la consommer?

1475 Alors, est‑ce qu’on est dans un scénario, de votre point de vue où est‑ce que, peut‑être, on devrait imaginer une définition à géométrie variable selon le type de contenu auquel on fait face de façon à ce que ce soit mieux adapté aux caractéristiques propres de ce genre et donc une nomenclature de points qui est adaptée à la nature du contenu de fiction, une nomenclature de points qui est mieux adaptée aux défis de l’industrie ‑‑ je n’aime pas encore une fois le dire ‑‑ mais du documentaire? Alors, ça, c’est ma première question. J’aimerais avoir votre réaction.

1476 Et, en même temps, comment est‑ce qu’on peut s’engager dans cette voie sans construire un monstre réglementaire qui sera extrêmement difficile à gérer, d’autant plus qu’on n’est probablement pas à la fin du rouleau, c’est‑à‑dire qu’il y a peut‑être d’autres genres hybrides de contenu qui vont émerger à terme quelque part entre la fiction et le documentaire, le docu‑fiction. Et, finalement, on ne saura plus vraiment vers quelle nomenclature se tourner pour obtenir le financement qui est sollicité.

1477 Alors, c’est une peu une question large, théorique, hypothétique. Mais on est ici pour explorer. Alors, je serais intéressée à avoir vos réactions comme ça. Et, si vous avez besoin d’y réfléchir, il n’y a pas de problème. Nous, on est tout à fait ouverts à faire un suivi par la suite, si vous vous y engagez. Puis on vous demandera officiellement de vous engager. Merci.

1478 M. McCREADY : Merci de la question. En fait, je comprends tout à fait les considérations de certaines demandes qui vont dans la direction opposée. Et je pense que, oui, il y a moyen de trouver un terrain médiant parce qu’il y a une question d’équité réglementaire.

1479 Par exemple, que la fiction soit sous l’exigence d’un certain nombre de points, mais qu’il y ait des postes créatifs clés qui puissent être tenus par des étrangers et que le documentaire ne puisse pas se prévaloir de ce rapport de minimum à rencontrer plutôt qu’une exigence à 100 pour cent, ça, pour moi, c’est un problème, t’sais, qui devrait se régler demain. C’est inéquitable. Pourquoi le documentaire est traité comme un genre à part avec un seuil plus élevé? Je ne vois pas d’argument qui puisse soutenir ça.

1480 La deuxième chose, c’est que, dans l’équilibre de productions, il faut comprendre qu’une œuvre de fiction, à moins d’être tournée avec une équipe de type guérilla, où on a une caméra, un preneur de son puis deux acteurs en plein milieu d’un champ, une équipe de fiction va entraîner une série de chefs de département et de postes où on peut avoir parfois jusqu’à 40, 50 techniciens et artisans derrière la caméra qui sont responsables de ce qu’on retrouve devant la caméra.

1481 Et les obligations, par exemple, que ces postes créatifs clés soient couverts par des Canadiens sont tout à fait logiques avec la posture des différents syndicats, les associations d’artistes parce qu’on veut effectivement que la majorité de l’argent sur un budget de production aille aux artisans canadiens. Donc, ça, c’est un point qui, à mon sens, peut se rencontrer.

1482 Mais je vous donne un exemple type, parce que c’est dans les détails qu’on voit les absurdités. J’ai un tournage dans un pays étranger. J’ai quelqu’un à la direction photo qui est canadien, donc, une équipe… très petite équipe. Preneur de son, direction photo, réalisation et production partent tourner dans un pays étranger. J’ai besoin pour mon contenu d’accéder à une communauté qui est difficile d’accès, par exemple, un groupe de femmes qui est détenu dans une prison, où que les femmes ont le droit de rentrer.

1483 Je vais devoir trouver une cheffe… une opératrice de caméra, une femme locale qui parle la langue, qui est une femme et qui connaît les us et coutumes de cette communauté pour pouvoir y naviguer et ne pas commettre d’impair culturel, ne pas débarquer en… excusez‑moi l’expression, là, mais en gros Nord‑Américains qui pensent que tout leur est dû.

1484 Pourquoi cette personne‑là n’aurait pas le droit d’avoir le titre de directrice photo puisqu’elle a pris des décisions créatives dans son tournage à l’intérieur de la prison, assumé la qualité de la prise de vue et l’esthétique de cette prise de vue là et que je suis obligé de donner à cette personne‑là et le titre et le cachet d’une caméra additionnelle? Ça, pour moi, c’est un problème d’équité. Puis, là, c’est un problème de colonialisme assez important parce que je suis obligé de maintenir les personnes avec qui je travaille à l’étranger dans des postes subalternes strictement parce qu’ils s’adonnent à être non canadiens dans ce titre que je veux donner.

1485 Donc, s’il y avait, par exemple, l’exigence que le poste créatif clé doit rencontrer un minimum de points et que ce projet‑là demande par exemple un directeur artistique d’un pays local pour les costumes, pour le choix des lieux, et cætera, et cætera, qu’on puisse travailler dans un contexte où, localement, on va être en respect des populations dans lesquelles on travaille.

1486 C’est sûr que, ça, ce problème ne se pose pas, par exemple, quand je travaille au Canada. Et on a développé depuis plusieurs années, surtout grâce au Bureau du cinéma autochtone, des protocoles par exemple de travail dans des contextes autochtones où, là, on comprend, il y a de meilleures pratiques à suivre pour travailler dans des communautés quand on ne vient pas de ces communautés‑là.

1487 Mais les mêmes paramètres s’appliquent quand on tourne un film à l’étranger. Et donc, de maintenir ce que, moi, je considère une équité réglementaire en ce moment, ça limite la capacité des cinéastes canadiens d’explorer leur propre histoire, mais d’explorer aussi des histoires qui touchent au Canada, entre autres, l’impact de la contribution canadienne dans des pays étrangers, tant au niveau humanitaire, scientifique que militaire, là.

1488 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Je vous remercie beaucoup pour votre réponse. C’était très clair et extrêmement intéressant. Merci beaucoup.

1489 M. McCREADY : Merci.

1490 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Alors, on aimerait vous donner l’opportunité d’offrir des remarques finales. Merci.

1491 M. McCREADY : Écoutez, ce sera court. Je tiens encore à remercier la Commission. Les travaux que vous faites sont très importants. Nous avons la chance au Canada d’avoir un écosystème de création télévisuelle et cinématographique qui est riche, qui a une certaine indépendance et qui, malgré le fait qu’on est le voisin d’un géant médiatique, réussit à conserver ses qualités et ses particularités. Et je pense que ça doit être l’esprit dans lequel la Commission s’engage. C’est comment protéger l’intégrité artistique et l’indépendance éditoriale des créateurs canadiens. Merci.

1492 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Merci.

1493 THE SECRETARY: Merci. I would now ask Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Incorporated to come to the presentation table. When you are ready, please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

1494 MS. ILLE: Well, good afternoon Madam Chairperson, Vice‑Chairs, Commissioners, and staff. (Indigenous language spoken / Langue autochtone parlée) Well, hello. My name is Monika Ille. I am an Abenaki from the community of Odanak, and I am the CEO of APTN.

1495 Alors, l’année dernière, APTN a célébré ses 25 ans d’antenne. À notre lancement, nous étions le premier diffuseur national autochtone au monde. En septembre dernier, nous avons lancé APTN Langues. À l’exception des bulletins d’information, tout le contenu de cette chaîne révolutionnaire est en langues autochtones. Il s’agit d’une avancée majeure.

1496 APTN soutient un écosystème de production autochtone florissant. Nous produisons plus de mille heures de programmation autochtone originale chaque année.

1497 The Commission has asked how a modernized Canadian programming expenditure framework can support Indigenous content. A key part of the answer must be to support and reinforce the role that Indigenous broadcasters, like APTN, play in the broadcasting system.

1498 MR. OMELUS: Funding for Indigenous production should prioritize the production and exhibition of content on Indigenous broadcasters. This requires a rethinking of some funding tools, as we outlined in our submission. Funding envelopes should include set‑asides for Indigenous productions in all funded genres. Priority for that funding should go to productions with an Indigenous broadcaster, preferably in a first window position. Where there is no Indigenous broadcaster involvement, the commissioning broadcaster should have shown its willingness to include an Indigenous broadcaster or to make available broadcast rights within a reasonable period. And commissioning thresholds should reflect resources available to Indigenous broadcasters.

1499 Nous sommes vraiment préoccupés par l’idée d’imposer des exigences spécifiques en matière de présentation et de dépenses pour les émissions autochtones sur plupart des services de radiodiffusion au Canada. Bien qu’à première vue, cela puisse sembler offrir de belles opportunités aux producteurs autochtones, et ce, à court terme, mais éventuellement cela pourrait épuiser les fonds disponibles et avoir un impact négatif sur la production autochtone des radiodiffuseurs autochtones, comme APTN.

1500 Au lieu de cela, APTN soutient le maintien de la structure incitative existante pour les productions indépendantes autochtones.

1501 MS. McKENZIE: Concerning the news, APTN’s news and public affairs programming is produced in‑house without consistent external funding. APTN now broadcasts two daily newscasts five days a week in English, plus a weekend recap newscast and weekly French‑language newscasts. Our award‑winning public affairs programs, Face to Face, Nation to Nation, and APTN Investigates, inform audiences on topics of public interest in depth on a weekly basis. We employ more than 60 people in providing news and current affairs in 10 different locations including Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Iqaluit, Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, and our Winnipeg headquarters in Treaty 1 territory.

1502 APTN has proposed that our news programming be included within the independent local news funding framework. APTN is for Indigenous communities what local television service is for non‑Indigenous communities. This is expensive but essential work, and all news broadcast content, for sure, in the system is hard to monetize. Indigenous news content, focused on the communities and those specific issues that would otherwise be invisible, is probably the most challenged.

1503 M^me ILLE : Alors APTN est confrontée à une crise de financement croissante. Notre base de revenus actuelle ‑‑ les tarifs de gros des EDR, complétés par les recettes publicitaires télévisées ‑‑ diminue progressivement. APTN a lancé APTN lumi, un service en ligne par abonnement. Ce service se développe lentement, mais il ne remplace pas notre service de télévision linéaire.

1504 It is time for the online sector to make a contribution to services of exceptional importance, like APTN. Canadian program expenditure requirements for these services should include a direct contribution to a Services of Exceptional Importance Fund, or SEIF.

1505 APTN has worked on many, many different occasions with other Canadian broadcasters, and now once with each of Netflix and Disney. And we truly value the relationship we have built with these other media. These other media absolutely have a role to play in reflecting Indigenous peoples and cultures. It’s different, though, for Indigenous media. We not only reflect Indigenous peoples and cultures, we are a part of it. We are the means of our own expression. It matters who the broadcaster is.

1506 I was so excited to be here up front, I forgot to present my team with me, so I’m going to do that right away. So I have here Cheryl McKenzie, the executive director of News and Current Affairs; we have Mike Omelus, executive director of Content and Strategy, and Joel Fortune, our regulatory legal counsel.

1507 So thank you very much, and we’re very happy to be here today. And we would like to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. (Indigenous language spoken / Langue autochtone parlée)

1508 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. And we are happy that you are happy to be here, so that all works out. And thank you for your patience today. And I know also this involved some travel, so thank you for being here with us.

1509 I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott to kick off the questions for the Commission. Thank you.

1510 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks, Madam Chair. And thank you for being here. So lots of questions, but I think I’ll start really broad. So the Broadcasting Act clearly recognizes the importance of Indigenous content as does the CRTC. And I just wanted to get your sense of the scale of the challenge. Does this feel like the type of challenge where, with some key strategic interventions, we could take something, you know, from struggling to very successful? Or are we are like a big turning point moment where a Hail Mary is necessary? Like what’s the shape of the challenge? Are we close? Do we need bold ‑‑

1511 MS. ILLE: At APTN right now, our challenges? We’re at the crossroads. Let’s be real. I mean, we’re very fortunate, though, that we have mandatory carriage and very appreciative that we did receive a three cent increase when we amended our broadcast licence and to change the broadcast model. So that was something quite significant to us to move from four feeds to two feeds and to launch APTN Languages.

1512 As an Indigenous‑owned media, it is so important for us to take control of our stories, our voices, our languages, our identity. And so right now, by having these two channels that are launched, we are seeing some challenges because we went from four to two. We lost some audiences. It’s hard to discover APTN. We’ve changed on some dials, if we could say “dial” again today, but we all know what I’m talking about. We’ve changed position. People are having a hard time to find us. It’s getting there slowly.

1513 We just redid our StrAP plan, and now we’re putting lots of emphasis on increasing our revenue. I’m not saying it’s something we didn’t consider before, but now we feel we need to do so, because if we don’t add more revenue or diversify our revenue streams, it’s going to be tough for APTN to make it in a couple of years.

1514 So yes, definitely, we’re changing. We know the importance of online. That’s why we launched APTN Lumi, to make sure that we have that presence online. And we know that the future of broadcasting is with collaboration. That’s what APTN is trying to do, collaborate more and more with various media. And that’s why I was saying we had this great partnership with Disney and Netflix for North of North that was launched recently. So moving forward, I think we need to do more of those.

1515 But we need to make sure, though, that everything that is Indigenous is just not can I say a trend, that it’s something that is really meaningful and authentic and it’s going to continue for the years to come. And the difference between us and others is that because we are Indigenous‑owned, Indigenous‑led, we’re in for the long run to do Indigenous content and Indigenous storytelling and supporting that from the emerging.

1516 So there’s still lots of work to be done, but I feel like right now we need the resources. We need the means to continue to do the terrific work we’ve been doing for the past 25 years.

1517 I don’t know if Mike or Cheryl on the news or programming side would like to add something.

1518 MR. OMELUS: The challenges are there. We’re trying to adapt. We don’t consider ourselves a traditional broadcaster. We don’t think that term exists anymore. We’re a media company. We’re about to launch a fast channel. We’re in the AVOD space. We’re experimenting with that. We’ll have content appearing soon on Air Canada in‑flight entertainment. So we’re trying everything we can. We’re working with companies like Roku and Pluto to get our content out to more viewers. But it’s a slow climb, and we’re optimistic, but we’re facing challenges just like a lot of other media companies are.

1519 MS. McKENZIE: And on the news and current affairs side, there is definitely a big demand for specific information that Indigenous people find relevant to them. And literally like translating these stories that are coming through in the national media into the kind of stories that resonate with our audience. And by that I mean reflecting their cultures, reflecting their voices, giving them forums to talk about those issues amongst themselves on our particular platforms that we’re providing.

1520 And it’s getting increasingly difficult to get out to those communities that we need to get to. We’re doing great. We have such a dedicated staff that always go above and beyond. Yes, we’re a television broadcasting station, but we’re literally on so many different platforms and reaching so many different more audiences, trying to be where they are, not just our television broadcast, and also blending that digital into the broadcast so that we have that synergy happening.

1521 So there is a lot going on, but yes, the cable subscriptions that are continuing to decline is definitely a huge concern.

1522 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: And is the SCIF model that you’ve proposed really just a means of replacing your declining existing revenue source via the kind of the 911 age? Or is there more to the model than just kind of making up for revenue that’s trending downwards?

1523 MS. ILLE: Well, it’s a bit of both, a bit of everything; right? So we do have a decrease in our subscriber fees. So definitely, this fund will help to replace some of that funding. But we know that that’s not it. We need to do more than that. We need to diversify.

1524 But that fund is important also in the sense that if you have these foreign distributors coming in, in our country, you know, taking our money, in our sector, they should reinvest and support the existing ecosystem that’s here right now and really to continue to work in partnership with them. So I see it in a way as, yes, we will benefit from it, but they’ll benefit as well.

1525 So yes, definitely, that revenue will help to supplement and move us forward because if we continue just with the fixed subscriber rate, we won’t make it.

1526 MR. OMELUS: And I think the fund is supporting essential elements of the Canadian broadcasting system, the channels that potentially could access a fund, were it to be created, are critically important, doing things that no one else is doing on the diversity front when it comes to Indigenous content. And there needs to be a way, a mechanism to support that kind of content, because it is critical to who we are as a people, to the country we live in. And those services wouldn’t otherwise exist. So we think it can play a critical role.

1527 MS. McKENZIE: Mm‑hmm. And I’d just add that it’s important to have an Indigenous broadcast perspective in that, especially in the news angles that get covered, because it’s not just enough to say that you’re covering politics to say that you’re covering being a reliable news service for that remote community in that particular part of the country.

1528 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: One of the questions I’m seized with in terms of proceeding in a respectful, collaborative, effective, and simple way is whether we should be looking at two parallel systems when we talk about support for Indigenous content and support for Canadian content. Is it better to think of those as conceptually two parallel tracks? Or is Indigenous kind of nested within as an integral and important part of Canadian content? Is there one point of view that you find more helpful and constructive than the other?

1529 MS. ILLE: That’s a very interesting question, and thank you for bringing that up. And I’m thinking about it. I’m very pleased to hear that question because maybe five years ago we would not have had this question. And I think that shows the importance now that the broadcasting industry has about Indigenous content and Indigenous‑owned media.

1530 So for sure, you know, when APTN was created, it’s because Indigenous people were invisible in mainstream media. And just seeing the progress, where we’re at today, thinking should Indigenous be separate, and I would say to a point yes. Why not? As the first people of this country, and everything that our people suffered, to have this recognition is to show that what we say is important that, you know, APTN, Uvagut TV, Inuit TV, radios and community television matters because we are a way the one that bond this country together. So by having, I would say ‑‑ and I’m just thinking out loud, because I’ve never thought of this ‑‑ but having this separate recognition shows the importance of what we do and the value we bring to the broadcasting system.

1531 MR. OMELUS: Certainly, the rules potentially should be different because when we’re looking at doing productions, it doesn’t necessarily fit within the confines of the colonial border. For instance, we might like to do a production with an Inuit producer, you know, in the circumpolar region with someone from Denmark, you know, who might not fit the traditional point system. But it’s truly an Indigenous production, telling critically important stories, protecting narrative sovereignty.

1532 So you do potentially need a different set of rules to help ensure those productions can come to life and that we can sustain them.

1533 MS. McKENZIE: That is a very interesting question. Thanks for asking it. And I’ll just add that, yes, those partnerships are happening with other broadcasters, but it always seems like they’re trying to like work us into the conversation.

1534 I’ll give you an example. This past federal election in the leaders’ debates, yes, we’re an editorial partner, but again, trying to work it into the conversation. There was no Indigenous section in this leadership campaign. In the lead‑up to the election, you know, we’re normally hearing a lot about Indigenous rights and where Indigenous people stand, but there was very little of that in this campaign. So we provided our own coverage, as we normally do, on the federal election front.

1535 But yeah, just to sum it up, it just seems like they’re always trying to like work us into the conversation when we are the first peoples of this land, and we are an Indigenous broadcaster, and that means something in Canada. That means something to Canadian culture, because that’s where the Canadian culture really starts is that relationship with Indigenous peoples.

1536 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you for those answers. And I love when an intervenor gives me a good segue to my next question, so thank you for that too, because I did want to talk a bit about the ecosystem.

1537 So you did talk in your written submission about relationships between Indigenous broadcasters, Indigenous content creators, and others who are contributing to the system. I think you went so far as to say that unless there’s an Indigenous broadcaster participating in the production, outside sources funding an Indigenous production could actually be counterproductive to strengthening the Indigenous broadcasting system. One, is that a fair ‑‑ am I fairly characterizing what you’re saying? And are there other similar unintended pitfalls that we should be wary of?

1538 MS. ILLE: Well, what we want to highlight in that is the importance of the Indigenous broadcaster in the sector. And if there is a project with a non‑Indigenous broadcaster, make sure that that non‑Indigenous broadcaster, who has a duty to reflect Indigenous perspectives, comes to an Indigenous broadcaster, would it be APTN or another, to say, Hey, we’ve got this project, would you be interested in partnering with us on it? Because we are, you know, Indigenous media, APTN and others. And I think it’s important because we don’t have the means and the resources of the bigger broadcaster. And they should help support us and support the storytelling. And one way of supporting us is to share a window with us and giving us the possibility to be on the project with them.

1539 MR. OMELUS: I think it’s great that there is interest in creating Indigenous content. We’re thrilled by that. There are so many stories that have been untold for so long, and they’re coming to life. And we commission 54, on average, in the past five years, productions. Every single year we develop another 24. We’ve helped trigger budgets well in excess in the past five years of 500 million, half a billion dollars and growing.

1540 Anyone can broadcast Indigenous content, but the impact and the authenticity, I think they differ profoundly when Indigenous people are able to control the narrative from the creation right to the dissemination. And in essence, while non‑Indigenous broadcasters can show Indigenous content ‑‑ and we’re very pleased that they’re doing so, and we’ve had so many wonderful partnerships, especially on the scripted drama front ‑‑ indigenous‑controlled entities that are in the broadcasting space ensure that the heart, the soul, and intent behind the content remain authentically Indigenous, asserting the needs and aspirations of Indigenous communities in ways that, you know, external entities simply cannot replicate. And as Monika said off the top of her presentations, Indigenous broadcasting ‑‑ Indigenous controlled broadcasting is essential, and it matters who the broadcaster is.

1541 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I think I’ll make this my last question, and it’s really about kind of regulatory machinery or the framework because we’ve got a number of proposals for different ways to support content creation, whether that’s with funds, CPE requirements. We’ve also had people advocating for, you know, investment and training counting.

1542 In terms of developing the framework, is it better to have kind of a common currency where we say, you know, this is your one CPE requirement and there are multiple ways in which you can contribute towards it or should we be more prescriptive in saying you should allocate X dollars for training, X dollars for payment into funds, X dollars for programming expenditure?

1543 Is there one that seems simpler and/or more effective than the other?

1544 MR. OMELUS: I would say simpler is better in this climate. There are tremendous challenges, we realize, being faced not only by APTN but other broadcasters, and we’re aware of that. You know, we talk to our colleagues every day.

1545 So overly prescriptive perhaps is not the way to go. We can’t speak for other broadcasters, obviously, and they’ll speak to you in due course, but they can be highly incented to support content, and that might be the best way to go in trying to work through the myriad of details that you face.

1546 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. Thanks very much. I’ll stop there and turn it back to the Chair.

1547 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I will turn it over to the other Vice‑Chair.

1548 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: My colleague, Vice‑Chair Scott, is so good at asking very good questions, I’m always impressed, so I asked the team is somebody writing this down. This is a really good question.

1549 First of all, you know, I want to congratulate you for your innovation and your innovative thinking. I particularly liked your description of some of the partnerships that you’re putting in place with players like Air Canada. I think that is a great way to bridge communities, to have non‑Indigenous people learning about Indigenous people, and hopefully vice‑versa. I think that’s absolutely key, and it’s something that we should keep in our minds as we reflect on these important issues.

1550 So I’m ‑‑ how do we make sure through these partnerships that have a tremendous value in terms of discoverability, in terms of monetizing as well the content for the benefit of those Indigenous communities that create those particular types of content, how do we ensure that the Indigenous creators retain the narrative control so that, you know, we don’t suddenly or incrementally allow for content to be too diluted that it becomes less Indigenous for reasons, you know, marketability or just because it’s a request coming from a different partner?

1551 How do you find that sweet spot?

1552 MR. OMELUS: It’s what we do every day, trying to protect and support that narrative sovereignty. We commission, you know, a lot of content, a lot more than any other broadcaster, certainly, in the Indigenous space. Every year it’s 350 plus hours of original content and we’re constantly reacquiring the content to support the Indigenous production ecosystem that exists that, in essence, APTN created thanks to the support of the CRTC 25 years ago. That ecosystem did not exist then. The number of Indigenous producers who were around, you know, could be counted on one hand and now we are constantly dealing with 150 producers. And we think that’s fantastic.

1553 So yes, there has to be recognition that they need to be supported. I think we’ve shown that we have great relationships with those producers. We’ve treated them with, you know, respect and helped support their careers and they keeping coming to us. Some of them have had success with other bigger players as well.

1554 We’ve started to create an Indigenous star system, in a way, similar to what’s happened in Quebec, and we think that needs to happen. There were some wonderful comments earlier from another presenter yesterday, Real World, about discoverability, which I’m not sure we’re talking as much as we need to about that subject. But I think we’re ‑‑ we don’t want to water down the content. It has to be authentic. It has to be true to Indigenous peoples and their cultures and traditions.

1555 And it’s a great question. It’s ‑‑ but we’re very mindful of that and we’re aware of that every single day.

1556 MS. ILLE: And I think it’s the nature of who we are as Indigenous people. We’re from an Indigenous owned media and working with Indigenous storytellers, it’s very clear that when they pitch a project to us, you know, creatives need to be held by Indigenous people and we hold them accountable to that and we say you also need to train as much as possible emerging talent, Indigenous talent. So ‑‑ but that’s something that we do and it ‑‑ we’ve been doing it for the past 25 years and we’re not going to change. That is going to continue.

1557 MR. OMELUS: I’m sorry, briefly, in terms of the co‑productions that we’re doing with our various partners, it’s really interesting to see the dynamic. APTN does not have the wherewithal to create these scripted dramas on its own. We need our partners. But APTN brings to the table credibility and a lot of respect, and we really punch above our weight in controlling the editorial content of these productions, if you will. And that’s the role that we play to, I think, help ensure that we don’t water down the authenticity.

1558 Sorry.

1559 MS. McKENZIE: Yeah, no. That’s okay.

1560 I was just going to add that with the programming letting the creators lead translates within the news ‑‑ within the organization as well because Monika is not telling the news what to do. We maintain our journalistic independence within APTN as well.

1561 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Maybe one last question.

1562 So we heard today from the Shaw Radio Fund and from TVO and yesterday from TFO about the fact that, you know, kids’ programming is a particularly risky genre or, should I say, genre that’s more at risk given that, you know, a lot of the content is moving online. What are the specific challenges for Indigenous kids?

1563 There’s a lot of Indigenous kids if you look at, you know, the ratio of the total Indigenous population. It’s a very young population, so ‑‑ and some of these Indigenous kids don’t necessarily have access to broadband.

1564 So are there any specific challenges with respect to kids’ programming that you would like to share with us from your point of view?

1565 MR. OMELUS: Yeah, kids’ programming is challenged. We don’t place any advertising around it, so it’s, you know, not possible to monetize it in any way. And we think it’s important to do nonetheless.

1566 We have created a number of shows in English and French and now, more so than ever before, in Indigenous languages. We’re doing a lot of versioning with children’s program, especially when it comes to animation. There’s a program that we have commissioned called “Chums” that is done in English and French as well as Plains Cree and Anishinaabe Mowan. And we want to do more versioning, so if I can put in a plug for the time credits, we think they’re important for the industry and they can help significantly.

1567 And we actually want to do more children’s programming going forward because we have a full‑time Indigenous languages channel. People want to reclaim their language. They want to learn their language. And one of the best ways to do that is with children’s programming.

1568 So the way we schedule the linear channel, we have blocks of language programming throughout the 24‑hour day and you can see children’s programming at 1 o’clock in the morning. And that’s not necessarily designed for kids. It’s designed for adults as well. So we want to continue to do children’s programming going forward.

1569 VICE‑CHARIPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much, and thank you for your patience. You’ve been here all day. And also, thank you for your participation in the Indigenous broadcasting policy process. You know, I know you’re very involved and it’s absolutely fundamental that you continue to be, so thank you very much.

1570 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, and that was a very subtle plug for time credits.

1571 I will turn things over to Commissioner Paquette.

1572 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Merci, et bonjour

1573 Je voudrais revenir sur la question des partenariats que vous faites avec d’autres diffuseurs et d’autres plateformes.  Je pense qu’APTN est probablement le diffuseur qui a le plus d’expérience en cette matière.  Je le sais que vous en avez fait plusieurs, beaucoup.  Et puis l’expérience de North of North, que vous avez mentionnée, est vraiment un bel exemple, je crois.

1574 J’aimerais vraiment vous entendre un peu plus.  Premièrement, est‑ce que... en fait, je me demandais comment, en général, sans rentrer dans les détails de l’entente, en général, elles sont structurées, ces ententes, et est‑ce qu’il y a des modèles au niveau, par exemple, du droit d’auteur qui commencent à émerger quand vous structurez de tels partenariats?

1575 M^me ILLE : Mike, si tu permets, je vais juste commencer.

1576 Donc, oui, on a plusieurs partenariats avec d’autres diffuseurs.  Ça fait 25 ans, mais ça n’a pas toujours été constant.  Alors, au début, il n’y en a pas eu.  Tout d’un coup, il y en a eu.  Ensuite, il n’y en a pas eu.  Tout d’un coup, il y en a eu encore.  Je pense, ça monte et ça descend.  C’est sûr qu’il y a des incitatifs présentement qui aident, surtout au niveau de la production pour la fiction.

1577 Mais c’est quand même un défi parce que c’est important ‑‑ étant donné qu’on est... financièrement, on ne peut pas investir autant que l’autre diffuseur ‑‑ de garder aussi notre place dans le processus de collaboration.  Mais je pense qu’il y a un respect mutuel qui se fait de plus en plus, et je pense qu’APTN, depuis 25 ans, a de plus en plus de crédibilité.  On a une petite équipe, mais une petite équipe qui est très, très impliquée, qui est très diversifiée, et on prend notre place.  On ne se gêne pas de vraiment prendre notre place à la table.

1578 M. OMELUS : Si je peux ajouter quelque chose en anglais, c’est plus facile pour moi, s’il vous plaît.

1579 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui, pas de problème.

1580 MR. OMELIUS: Our partnerships are incredibly important and we’re looking for them wherever we can. Monika mentioned we did Disney. That was the Star Wars project that we launched with the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council and the University of Manitoba and Disney Lucasfilm. What an incredibly cool project that was to version that historical movie into Anishinaabe Mowan.

1581 And we don’t have the wherewithal, as I said earlier in response to another Commissioner, to do that on our own and so these partnerships are incredibly important. And we just hope they continue to be ‑‑ the willingness continues to be there to work with us to continue to ensure that we’re able to do as many scripted dramas as we’re doing now.

1582 Previously in, you know, years past, APTN maybe was doing one scripted drama per year and now, because of our partnerships, you know, it’s four or five. And we want to continue those, obviously.

1583 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And if as an example we take “North of North”, it has come to our attention that it’s been renewed for a second season. So can you talk about the experience of the relationship as an example between you, the CBC, Netflix and is it the model that you see that will be renewed with other productions?

1584 MR. OMELUS: We hope so. It’s a wonderful comedy. It’s an expensive comedy. Doing it primarily in Iqaluit has been challenging. There are a lot of sets and people flown into the community. I think most everyone who lives there was an extra at one point or another in the series.

1585 We’re working our way through the partnership. We don’t have a tremendous amount of experience with Netflix. We’re grateful that they supported the production when it was first presented to them by the producers.

1586 We have a lot more experience, obviously, with CBC/Radio Canada on partnerships.

1587 So we’re working our way through that, but ‑‑ and you know, time will tell how successful these partnerships remain.

1588 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And what about the rights? When you negotiate ‑‑ when you structure the rights between three parties, I suspect the online rights must be at the centre of the discussions.

1589 Are we starting to see a way to structure this kind of issue between the parties?

1590 MR. OMELUS: We, as a media company based in Canada, primarily operating in Canada, obviously the Canadian rights are paramount to us. The windowing has been ‑‑ we’ve had great collaboration on the windowing with our Canadian partners.

1591 And you know, the big streamers, they’re looking for the international rights, obviously.

1592 There was a three‑month delay, I believe, until Netflix could, you know, start running the series on its platform and it’s taken off around the world. I think one of the statistics I saw, it was in their top 10 internationally for almost a week, which is wonderful. And it’s great to get that exposure for Canadian content and, you know, stories about that part of the world that not many people know a lot about.

1593 But the rights are becoming increasingly difficult and complex to administer and APTN at one point in its history was only concerned primarily with the linear television rights. Not any more.

1594 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah, that’s what I suspect.

1595 MR. OMELUS: So we’re in the game as well.

1596 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you very much.

1597 MR. FORTUNE: Maybe just on this thing.

1598 I think in terms of the financing structure of this project, and I’m not intimately familiar with it, but I do know that it included CNF funding triggered by APTN, perhaps CBC as well. And Netflix is now exploiting that production around the world which was supported by the CNF dollars, so it’s not fair to say that streamers that participate in Canadian productions with Canadian broadcasters that trigger Canadian funding don’t benefit from that funding.

1599 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you very much.

1600 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

1601 Let’s go over to Commissioner Naidoo.

1602 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: And I want to join everyone else in saying thanks for being here.

1603 I want to discuss data collection and publication. You’ve probably heard different players in the system have said that they need access to more data in order to make the best decisions for their content. As an Indigenous broadcaster, how do you reconcile getting data while also respecting that asking for that data can raise questions about self‑identification and privacy issues as well?

1604 MR. OMELUS: We would love to have more data. Data is everything. It helps you make smarter decisions. It helps you reposition your business for the long haul.

1605 We are challenged in knowing precisely who’s watching us. You know, the ratings company does not have people meters in remote communities, certainly in the far north where a lot of people we know through the surveys that we do two and soon to be three times a year, you know, watch APTN. So it’s a challenge, and we’d love to dip into the set top box data. We hope that’s coming to give us even more insight.

1606 But I’m not sure, Commissioner Naidoo, if that answers your question, but we do really benefit from the data that is available to us.

1607 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Are you having to be, you know, some sensitivity issues with people or take into account that some of it might be ‑‑ you know, you have to be cognizant of the fact that there are privacy issues and so on, sensitivities?

1608 MR. OMELUS: We’re not there yet. We don’t have, you know, that house to house data coming to us, so we have no concerns on that front at this point.

1609 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you.

1610 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

1611 Thank you for answering all of our questions and we will turn things back over to you for any concluding thoughts.

1612 MS. ILLE: I want to conclude quickly. I just want to say that, you know, the Broadcasting Act now clearly recognizes that Indigenous peoples should operate our own broadcasting undertaking. And this is a reflection of the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People.

1613 And so to ensure that this right is realized and is given its full meaning and purpose, I would say public resources to support Indigenous production should be directed to productions involving Indigenous broadcasters. And that, for me, is a priority.

1614 And like we said, you know, it matters who the broadcaster is. And for APTN to be able to continue the work it started 25 years ago, we would need additional funding and we do believe that the streamers should contribute to the Canadian industry and a portion of the money should go to services of exceptional importance such as APTN and other independent broadcasters because what we do, like I said, is for the long run. It’s not just for the moment. It’s not a trend. And this ‑‑ we’ve seen the impact that APTN has had on our communities and beyond our communities and I would say even internationally. We are definitely a role model for other Indigenous broadcasters around the world.

1615 Thank you very much.

1616 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, APTN. Great note to end on for day 2. Thank you.

1617 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.

‑‑‑ L’audience est ajournée à 15 h 32 pour reprendre le vendredi 16 mai 2025 à 9 h 00

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