Transcription, Audience du 16 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

1619 Office national du film

1748 Irene Berkowitz

1844 Corus Entertainment Inc.

2048 ADISQ

2132 Canadian Communication Systems Alliance

2213 The Canadian Internet Society

2305 Téléfilm Canada

2452 Andromedia

2503 Motion Picture Association-Canada

Transcription

Gatineau (Québec)
16 mai 2025
Ouverture de l'audience à 8 h 59

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L’audience débute le vendredi 16 mai 2025 à 8 h 59

1618 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bon matin à tous. Nous allons débuter ce matin avec la présentation de l’Office national du film. S’il vous plaît vous présenter et vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

1619 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Bonjour. Mon nom est Suzanne Guèvremont. Je suis commissaire du gouvernement à la cinématographie et présidente de l’ONF.

1620 M^me LEFAIVRE : Bonjour. Je m’appelle Anne‑Claire Lefaivre. Je suis directrice générale adjointe distribution, programmation, marketing à l’ONF.

1621 MR. McLAUGHLIN: Good morning my name is Robert McLaughlin. I’m the Chief Strategy Officer at the National Film Board of Canada.

1622 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Alors, merci, Mesdames et Messieurs les Commissaires de nous donner l’occasion de s’adresser à vous ce matin.

1623 Nous sommes ici aujourd’hui pour aborder deux préoccupations majeures. La première concerne la nécessité d’inclure les éléments culturels dans la définition de la programmation canadienne et la seconde concerne le rôle fondamental du film documentaire au Canada.

1624 Mais commençons par une histoire.

1625 En 1961, une jeune femme quitte Nashville pour s’établir à Toronto. Elle est noire. Elle est trans. Et elle a une voix à couper le souffle. Cette jeune femme s’appelle Jackie Shane.

1626 Elle défie les attentes du monde entier à son égard en refusant de cacher son identité. Alors que ce monde ou plus précisément les États‑Unis ne sont pas prêts à l’écouter, au Canada, on n’hésite pas à le faire et à lui donner une tribune. Elle y trouve sa place.

1627 Et des décennies plus tard, l’ONF, à l’aide du documentaire et la coproduction Vivre et laisser vivre : la voix de Jackie Shane, nous l’aidons à reconquérir cette place. C’est un film de Michael Mabbott et de Lucah Rosenberg‑Lee, dans une coproduction avec Banger Films.

1628 Bon, cette histoire est canadienne, il n’y a aucun doute là‑dessus. Mais, dans le cadre de la proposition actuelle, des histoires comme celle‑ci risquent de ne plus être considérées canadiennes. . Non pas parce qu’elles ne reflètent pas le Canada, mais parce que nous aurons échoué à définir le terme « canadien » de manière à ce qu’il reflète notre identité profonde.

1629 So what makes something Canadian? The National Film Board has been wrestling with that for the last 86 years. We know it’s not a formula. It’s the perspective, the language, the land, the people, and the values. At the NFB, we work with filmmakers, Indigenous creators, official language minority communities, and emerging storytellers from every region across the country. And through that work, we’ve learned something vital: culture is not incidental to the story; it is the story.

1630 We understand and share the Commissioners’ goal to adapt to a changing marketplace. But we cannot afford to confuse flexibility with neutrality. A modern Canadian content policy must not abandon the very thing that gives our story meaning: cultural substance. Removing cultural elements might seem to create openness, but in practice, it really creates invisibility. And when we erase cultural context, when we lose the depth, we lose the diversity and the moral complexity that define us as a country.

1631 There are international models that prove a better path is possible. UK, Netherlands, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, France, Germany, Australia ‑‑ in each of these countries, public funding for screen content depends on a cultural test. These tests look at things like recognizable settings, national relevance, and depiction of everyday life. These systems don’t limit creativity, they create space for it, and they work.

1632 We respectfully urge the Commission to follow that lead, to adopt a flexible, thoughtful approach that reflects the richness and the diversity of cultural Canadian expression.

1633 J’aborde maintenant notre deuxième grande préoccupation : les changements proposés au programme d’intérêt national. Vous savez que l’ONF est le plus grand producteur de films documentaires au pays.

1634 L’histoire que je vous racontais tout à l’heure, celle de la chanteuse Jackie Shane, n’est pas seulement le portrait d’une femme extraordinaire. C’est aussi un long métrage qui a remporté de prestigieux prix, un long métrage documentaire, évidemment.

1635 Avec les changements proposés, nous sommes d’avis que l’on ne pourrait plus créer ce genre d’œuvre ou, du moins, on ne pourrait plus les voir.

1636 Nous estimons que, s’ils ne faisaient plus partie des émissions d’intérêt national, les documentaires deviendraient plus difficiles à financer et à programmer, et que le public canadien n’y aurait plus aussi facilement accès.

1637 Il ne s’agit pas d’un simple changement de politique. Il s’agit de l’érosion d’un service public et d’une menace à l’une des formes cinématographiques les plus réputées du Canada. Le documentaire encourage la participation citoyenne et ultimement la démocratie. Il capte l’expérience vécue des Canadiennes et Canadiens mieux que tout autre genre ne pourrait le faire.

1638 À bien des égards, le documentaire se compare aux nouvelles, que le CRTC a à juste titre protégées en les incluant dans les émissions d’intérêt national. Tout comme les nouvelles, le documentaire se fonde sur la vérité et sur des faits. Mais, contrairement aux nouvelles, il approfondit les sujets. Il les met en contexte. Il invite à la réflexion.

1639 Protéger le documentaire revient à protéger l’espace dans lequel le Canada se voit lui‑même le plus clairement.

1640 S’il vous plaît, ne le privons pas de cet éclairage.

1641 So what’s at stake in these hearings is more than just policy; it’s the future of how Canada sees itself. Our stories are not a burden to the industry; they are its foundation. We recognize the need for flexibility, for new models, for financial sustainability, but we know it’s possible to build a system that’s both dynamic and viable without abandoning what makes it meaningful.

1642 This is our moment to safeguard what matters the most: our culture, our creativity, our stories, our distinctiveness. That means affirming the importance of cultural elements in our definition of Canadian programming, and it means protecting documentary as a vital public good. If we wait, we risk losing what can’t be easily regained. This is now. Let us move forward, not with caution, but with conviction.

1643 Thank you.

1644 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à l’ONF d’être venu ici ce matin, de partager vos perspectives avec nous, incluant l’histoire de la chanteuse.

1645 We have noted the passion. And when you say things like, you know, “culture is not incidental to the story; it is the story,” we can feel that it’s coming from a place of passion.

1646 On va commencer les questions avec la conseillère Paquette.

1647 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Bien, merci, premièrement. Merci beaucoup pour votre participation. Je sens que vous apportez un point de vue extrêmement important à titre de producteur public.

1648 Je sens qu’on va aussi qu’on va avoir une bonne discussion sur la question des éléments culturels. J’ai plusieurs questions pour vous.

1649 Effectivement, vous vous positionnez très, très fortement en faveur de l’inclusion d’éléments culturels dans la définition. Je lisais dans votre mémoire, là, vous dites :

« Au fur et à mesure qu’un projet progresse dans son développement et sa production à l’ONF, des questions subjectives plus importantes se posent : quel est le point de vue canadien ou autochtone? »

1650 La question de la subjectivité est vraiment au cœur de nos discussions en ce moment parce qu’on se pose au Conseil la question – et je vais vous la poser : comment est‑ce qu’on peut identifier de manière objective ce qui fait partie de la culture canadienne sans négliger toute la diversité qu’il y a au pays?

1651 M^me GUÈVREMONT : C’est justement pour être en mesure de refléter toute la diversité qu’il y a au pays qu’on doit justement se poser ces questions‑là et ces éléments culturels dans un contenu d’une histoire.

1652 Ce que l’on sait, c’est que les auditoires cherchent des contenus authentiques. Ils vont chercher des contenus distinctifs et authentiques pour voir puis pour reconnaître et pour se voir à l’écran. Et, ça, c’est l’art de la production. C’est l’art de l’expérience de se poser les bonnes questions et dire : est‑ce que cette histoire‑là va avoir une résonnance? Même si elle géographiquement localisée dans un coin plus reculé, une histoire canadienne peut avoir de la résonnance à travers le pays.

1653 Puis peut‑être que je laisserais Rob continuer au niveau des critères subjectifs.

1654 MR. McLAUGHLIN: And I apologize, my translation is not working. I am an anglophone, and my French is very limited. So I apologize. I followed the question and that there will be lots of them.

‑‑‑ Sans microphone

1655 MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yeah, if you could, please. I am sorry. I didn’t want to interrupt the introductory remarks.

‑‑‑ Discussion officieuse

1656 MR. McLAUGHLIN: If you could repeat the question for me, I would really appreciate it, and I apologize for the ‑‑

1657 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I was talking about all the issue of subjectivity in defining what’s a Canadian point of view. While we are, I think, under the impression that we’re looking more for objective criteria than subjective criteria.

1658 MR. McLAUGHLIN: Of course, of course. At the Film Board, as Suzanne demonstrated through her opening remarks, our purpose is to engage in those very pertinent discussions, discussions and ongoing considerations of who we are, who we were, and who we will become. Fundamentally, a discussion about culture is complex and nuanced and constantly evolving. It’s because of that evolving nature, not of just culture, but also of the definition of culture, that we must engage in ongoing dialogue about how to define that and how to find the words to define that.

1659 I think it would be short‑sighted to think that it is purely a subjective discussion. It is a discussion about meaning and understanding. And through those discussions, we can reach some better connections to each other through the idea of culture. Culture is not an administrative consideration; it is partly emotional and partly social. So we are looking for processes that allow for the ongoing discussion that comes from people who are subjective, of course, in that. So our considerations are usually rooted in that.

1660 And fundamentally, at the Film Board, we engage in those discussions with filmmakers to begin, and then with communities to follow. And our mandate is fully achieved when the vision and perspective of diverse communities and diverse artists are connected with the diverse communities that make up the country.

1661 I think we’ve also tried to demonstrate in our submission material that there is a considerable amount of objective, if you want to put it that way, ways to quantify or calculate cultural considerations that many, many, many other countries use. We also suggested some things that we employ in our own practices that might be informative or useful in the consideration of that. But I think it would be an over‑simplification to think that it is a difference between subjectivity and objectivity in those discussions.

1662 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Pour continuer sur cette question, il y a beaucoup d’outils en ce moment qu’on peut considérer pour atteindre les objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion. Il y a des outils au niveau de la définition comme telle, au niveau des obligations en dépenses en émissions canadiennes et au niveau du financement aussi comme vous le savez.

1663 Je trouve qu’au niveau de la définition, c’est probablement l’endroit où est‑ce qu’on est le plus près de la création comme telle. Ce qu’il y a dans la définition, probablement, par exemple, un auteur qui s’assoit devant son ordinateur pour écrire est probablement l’outil réglementaire qui est le plus près de ce qu’il fait.

1664 Est‑ce qu’un auteur a besoin, doit se demander au moment de la création s’il ce qu’il fait reflète un point de vue canadien? Est‑ce que ça devrait être un souci pour un auteur de se demander si son travail reflète la réalité canadienne?

1665 M^me GUÈVREMONT : C’est une excellente question puis, la réponse, elle peut être tellement différente dépendant du genre de l’histoire.

1666 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui.

1667 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Est‑ce qu’on est dans de la fiction? Est‑ce qu’on est dans du documentaire? Est‑ce qu’on est dans une interprétation? Est‑ce qu’on est dans un récit? Est‑ce qu’on est dans un point de vue? Est‑ce qu’on est dans une perspective? Alors, c’est sûr que la réponse est complexe. Ça dépend, t’sais.

1668 Mais je pense que, quand… naturellement, quand on est assis dans notre chaise au Canada puis qu’on commence à raconter une histoire, on a nécessairement une perspective canadienne. On va vouloir faire part de cette perspective‑là canadienne, qui est notre point de vue, qui est notre… En tout cas, dans le documentaire, et c’est ça notre expertise, et dans le cinéma d’animation, cette perspective‑là et cette capacité de voir à travers l’histoire, de voir à travers le récit ce que c’est d’être canadien ou c’est quoi la perspective de notre culture canadienne, c’est relativement facile à faire parce qu’il y a toutes sortes de manières qu’on peut le faire.

1669 Puis il y a des manières qui sont très objectives, comme on voit les Rocheuses dans le paysage. Puis il y a des choses qui vont être beaucoup plus subjective parce que c’est dans le langage, par exemple, c’est dans la nature des échanges, c’est dans la culture des gens qui sont à l’écran, qui… on a des qualités, on a des défauts, les Canadiens. Puis on est distincts. On a notre propre manière de nous exprimer.

1670 Et tout ça, ça peut faire partie justement de qu’est‑ce que ça veut dire. Et de ne pas tomber dans le piège de vouloir créer des contenus qui sont accessibles pour toute la population au complet dans le monde entier. Il n’y a rien de pire que d’avoir quelque chose qui est complètement effacé parce qu’il n’y a pas d’intérêt.

1671 Les émissions, les documentaires qui ont le plus de succès sont des documentaires qui reflètent un vrai point de vue. Et c’est ça que les gens veulent voir. Ils veulent apprendre. Qu’est‑ce qui se passe en Nouvelle‑Zélande? Qu’est‑ce qui se passe en Suède? Qu’est‑ce qui se passe en Croatie? Qu’est‑ce qui se passe… On ne peut pas avoir une culture d’effacement où on va effacer les éléments culturels sous prétexte de vouloir dire qu’ils vont être mieux exportables. C’est faux.

1672 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Et est‑ce que les… Si on prend des exemples concrets à titre… Parce que j’ai l’impression que votre commentaire en matière de documentaire est peut‑être extrêmement pertinent. Mais je vais vous donner des exemples, là, parce que c’est des exemples qui me venaient en tête en lisant votre intervention.

1673 Je pense à des émissions à la télévision que j’ai écoutées cette saison, là, comme Alertes à TVA, Dumas à Radio‑Canada, Mea Culpa à Radio‑Canada. Je pense à des séries d’animation comme Toupie et Binou, qui sont des dessins animés pour enfants qui ont fait le tour du monde.

1674 Est‑ce que ce sont des émissions qui reflètent la réalité canadienne? Parce que j’ai l’impression qu’ils se déroulent dans des lieux plutôt neutres, avec des intrigues qui peuvent se retrouver un peu partout. Est‑ce que ces exemples‑là se qualifieraient pour des points de reflet de la réalité canadienne?

1675 Et, si je pousse plus loin, je prends une série à TVA, comme Les Armes, qui se passe sur une base militaire canadienne, est‑ce que cette émission‑là devrait être considérée comme plus canadienne que les exemples que je viens de vous donner?

1676 M^me GUÈVREMONT : J’aimerais vraiment ça pouvoir vous répondre à chacune de ces émissions‑là. Je trouve que ce n’est pas nécessairement notre rôle de le faire, avec tout respect parce qu’on n’est pas dans la fiction, ce n’est pas notre expertise.

1677 On a déjà fait de la fiction par le passé, il y a de nombreuses années, mais je… Puis les exemples que vous donnez se passent beaucoup au Québec puis le Québec a son écosystème un peu particulier dans le domaine des contenus audiovisuels, ne serait‑ce à cause de la langue, à cause de notre star system, qui est bien connu.

1678 Alors, le Québec a comme… a une réalité différente du reste du Canada. Puis, ça, il ne faut pas l’oublier. Alors… Et je pense que, quand on regarde d’une manière assez large ces genres d’émissions là, puis, Anne‑Claire, peut‑être que tu peux compléter si tu as quelque chose à dire ou even Robert.

1679 Je pense que, quand on regarde ces émissions‑là, il y a des choses qui nous ressemblent de toute façon. T’sais, il y a des éléments dans ça qui font en sorte qu’on se reconnaît à l’écran. Mais, au Québec, comme je vous dis, on reconnaît nos vedettes, on reconnaît nos protagonistes. On…

1680 Puis les émissions de jeunesse, ça, c’est un autre sujet complètement. Et c’est tellement une expertise en soi, la jeunesse. Puis l’animation jeunesse, c’est un modèle qui s’exporte extrêmement facilement, mais c’est moins typiquement associé à… Parce que c’est de l’animation. Donc, t’sais, c’est difficile pour moi de répondre à cette question‑là avec beaucoup d’intelligence.

1681 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Mais donc, ce que je comprends finalement de votre intervention, c’est que le critère culturel pourrait être associé à certains genres plus qu’à l’ensemble des contenus visés par une définition?

1682 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Bien, ça, ce sera à vous peut‑être d’arriver à cette conclusion‑là. Je ne voudrais certainement pas intervenir, mais… Puis la posture de mes collègues qui font de la fiction dans les domaines de la télévision…

1683 Mais je pense, à un très haut niveau, je vous dirais que, dans les autres pays, si on prend exemple des autres pays, ils ne font pas la distinction par genre. Ils le font à tout acabit puis à tout différent format et à tout différent… Et ça fonctionne. Et ça a fonctionné depuis des années. Ça fait longtemps que ces tests culturels là sont implantés dans les autres pays. Et il n’y a pas de distinction par rapport au genre.

1684 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Très bien. Maintenant, je voulais aborder le sujet du documentaire avec vous parce que c’est une autre de vos préoccupations importantes. Pourquoi pensez‑vous que le documentaire est à risque compte tenu que ça semble faire partie du modèle d’affaires des plateformes en ligne, ça semble un genre populaire? Pouvez‑vous nous expliquer pourquoi vous pensez que c’est à risque?

1685 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Avant de passer la parole à mes collègues, je voudrais quand même mettre en lumière que, ce que, nous, on parle, c’est le documentaire long format. Et ce n’est pas une forme de documentaire qui est exempte de nécessité d’être protégée de par son rôle, de par son mandat, qui est différent peut‑être des autres genres, qui rentre dans la catégorie documentaire. À ce point‑là, je pense qu’Anne‑Claire, tu voulais…

1686 M^me LEFAIVRE : Bien, je pense que le documentaire… Merci pour la question, c’est extrêmement pertinent qu’on se pose ces questions‑là aussi, évidemment. Le long métrage documentaire nous permet vraiment d’entrer en profondeur puis créer une réflexion qu’aucun autre format documentaire permet de faire. Bien, peut‑être pas aucun autre format, mais le long métrage documentaire permet vraiment de prendre le temps d’intégrer, de parler d’un sujet, de créer de la réflexion, de créer des conversations, de susciter des éléments aussi importants que changer les mentalités, bâtir des communautés, changer des comportements.

1687 On est convaincus à l’ONF que le long métrage est un des seuls genres qui permet de rentrer aussi profondément dans des sujets puis de susciter autant de réflexion. Donc, oui, effectivement, on se positionne pour protéger le long métrage. Les autres genres sont très pertinents aussi, mais on est convaincus que ce genre‑là doit être protégé, car il permet de créer le tissu social canadien, d’encourager la démocratie, de forger les esprits comme aucun autre genre peut le faire.

1688 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Et, dites‑moi, le documentaire, c’est quand même large comme terme. Ça peut inclure tous les styles, là, style true crime versus documentaire d’affaires publiques, de recherche historique, et cætera. Est‑ce que vous faites des distinctions dans les genres, de votre côté, dans ce qui devrait être protégé, qui a besoin de support de l’écosystème versus des genres qui sont peut‑être plus populaires auprès du public? Et, si oui, où est‑ce que la ligne peut se tracer?

1689 MR. McLAUGHLIN: Yes. There is some wide‑ranging views on what constitutes a documentary. In the industry and the stakeholders we work with and our collaborators, the term “long‑form documentary” means something specific. It means not ‑‑ unfortunately, we define it by what it’s not at times ‑‑ it means not light entertainment, series, factual, reality‑based shows that don’t take advantage of the format that long‑form documentary offers, which is, as Anne‑Claire articulated, an opportunity to dig deeper and dive deeper and also to contemplate the very issues or stories that are contained there. Some of them are quite entertaining, of course, but their primary purpose is to elucidate and provoke and stimulate thinking and understanding. That is ultimately what a sort of general shared definition of what long‑form documentary would be.

1690 We do believe that, like our stakeholders in the industry, that if PNI, if it is not protected, that it will not be programmed as much. If it isn’t programmed as much, we are quite concerned about the ability for the format long‑form documentary to do its best in helping Canadians see themselves and understand themselves.

1691 We are also concerned about the knock‑on effect it might have on emerging filmmakers and young filmmakers who often look to long‑form documentary to hone their skills in the audiovisual sector.

1692 We are also quite concerned about innovation. As Suzanne mentioned, for 86 years, the Film Board has been a bedrock of documentary innovation for a very long time. And without that protection, we are concerned about what we would lose, essentially, in that regard. So long‑form documentary as something distinct from lighter series fare that makes up a good number of the streamers’ programming.

1693 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Et j’ajouterais peut‑être aussi que c’est… Ce qu’on définit comme le documentaire long format a aussi une valeur à long terme. Ça vient… On n’est pas dans l’instantanéité et dans l’éphémère. On est dans quelque chose qui est un reflet, qui a une vie, qui a un impact.

1694 Alors, souvent, dans d’autres genres qui rentrent dans la catégorie documentaire, oui, on est dans le divertissement, on est dans l’éphémère. Et, ça, bien, c’est moins, pour nous, une définition d’un documentaire qui a son impact et qui fait en sorte qu’on se reconnaît.

1695 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Peut‑être une toute dernière question avant de passer la parole à mes collègues. En ce qui concerne les partenariats, vous avez sûrement une grande expertise de production, de partenariats au national, à l’international. Est‑ce que c’est important pour la découvrabilité des productions, notamment sur le point international? Et si oui, est‑ce qu’il y aurait quelque chose à faire pour soutenir davantage la possibilité pour des entreprises comme la vôtre de conclure des partenariats qui peuvent augmenter la portée de ce que vous faites?

1696 M^me GUÈVREMONT : C’est évident que, pour l’ONF, notre public premier, c’est le public canadien. On est un organisme évidemment qui est au service de la population canadienne. Mais, aussi, on a un mandat de faire connaître le Canada au reste du monde. Et, dans ce contexte‑là, c’est vrai qu’on a des activités de distribution, si on peut appeler ça comme ça, à l’international. Puis Anne‑Claire pourra compléter davantage.

1697 M^me LEFAIVRE : Vous aviez entièrement raison. On a besoin de partenariats. C’est essentiel à notre travail, les partenariats au niveau national, les partenaires de diffusion, les partenaires des plateformes, les partenaires qui nous permettent de faire de la diffusion sur grand écran parce qu’il reste que le long métrage documentaire, pour revenir à ce sujet‑là, c’est un genre aussi qui se consomme sur grand écran, c’est du cinéma. Donc, tous ces partenaires‑là sont essentiels.

1698 À l’international, ça se passe beaucoup par la distribution effectivement. Le marché a beaucoup, beaucoup changé, on le sait. Ce n’est pas un marché qui est facile pour exporter notre contenu. Mais il reste toujours des partenaires qui sont plus dans les domaines du streaming, des plateformes qui sont plus secondaires, contrairement aux anciens, je dirais, les diffuseurs plus traditionnels en Europe. Mais on continue d’avoir besoin de ces gens‑là pour pouvoir diffuser notre contenu. Et ils sont intéressés par le documentaire et le long métrage documentaire, même si c’est des contenus qui sont typiquement et reflètent typiquement la culture canadienne, il y a un intérêt.

1699 Au Canada, on ne pourrait pas faire notre travail pour rejoindre nos audiences si on n’avait pas ces partenariats‑là. Puis, pour revenir à ce que mes collègues disaient plus tôt, ça vient renchérir l’essentialité, si je peux m’exprimer ainsi, d’avoir des diffuseurs qui sont capables de diffuser le long métrage parce que, sans ces partenariats‑là, on craint que le long métrage documentaire ne sera plus aussi accessible qu’il l’était. Donc, oui, effectivement, c’est absolument nécessaire au travail de diffusion puis d’atteinte des auditoires.

1700 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Merci. Merci beaucoup. Je n’ai plus de questions.

1701 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Alors, on va continuer avec la vice‑présidente. Merci.

1702 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci beaucoup. Et merci à vous trois pour votre participation. Je sais qu’on n’a pas beaucoup de temps. J’avais des tonnes de questions. Mais on fera peut‑être un suivi directement avec vous, là, pour un certain nombre de choses.

1703 Mais je voulais préciser ou revenir sur la question du documentaire. Hier, on a eu le bonheur de recevoir des intervenants qui nous ont amplement parlé du documentaire, notamment un intervenant de l’Observatoire du documentaire, qui nous faisait part de certaines particularités, de certains types de documentaires qui faisaient en sorte que pour se prévaloir de la définition du contenu canadien, ça ne fonctionnait pas.

1704 Notamment, un documentaire, par exemple, fait par un Canadien, mais filmé à l’étranger, ce qui requiert d’avoir affaire, souvent, avec des gens qui ne sont pas canadiens, qui sont sur place pour agir soit dans des postes créatifs ou dans des postes créatifs adjacents et que ça pouvait créer des problèmes pour cocher les cases de la définition du contenu canadien.

1705 S’en est suivi donc une conversation sur la définition en tant que telle, à savoir : est‑ce qu’il devrait y avoir des aménagements dans la définition du contenu canadien pour pouvoir répondre aux spécificités de certains genres, notamment le documentaire?

1706 Puis, juste peut‑être pour vous expliquer un peu les contraintes auxquelles ont fait face, nous, au CRTC, c’est qu’un de nos rôles, c’est aussi d’assurer une certitude dans le marché. Ce qui nous oblige à trouver des critères les plus clairs, avec le moins d’ambiguïté possible.

1707 Alors, je voulais peut‑être avoir vos réactions sur cette idée notionnelle d’introduire de la flexibilité dans les points, par exemple, qui seraient associés selon le type de contenu auquel on fait référence, notamment le documentaire.

1708 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Je comprends tout à fait puis on le mentionne effectivement qu’on veut avoir de la flexibilité puis on veut s’assurer que, t’sais, les contenus se fassent et qu’on ne soit pas limités dans le…

1709 En même temps, si on ne rajoute pas des critères d’éléments culturels dans cette évaluation de l’obtention de fonds publics et qu’on continue à avoir juste des critères objectifs et qu’on ouvre encore plus la flexibilité, bien, on va s’éloigner encore plus de faire des contenus canadiens. C’est ça la crainte. C’est ça notre point de vue, notre préoccupation.

1710 Alors, si on… Puis il y a toutes sortes de modèles, là. Il y a plein de choses, là, qu’on peut faire. Si vous regardez les différents modèles à travers le pays… Puis, pour revenir à ce que vous disiez, madame Théberge, ça va nous faire plaisir par la suite, là, si on peut répondre à d’autres questions. Je sais qu’on n’a pas beaucoup de temps. Mais c’est un bel équilibre entre qui est derrière la caméra, qui est devant la caméra, ce fameux système de pointage là et qu’est‑ce qu’on voit à l’écran puis… et quand est‑ce que des fonds publics devraient être dépensés pour faire du contenu canadien.

1711 Alors, nous, notre préoccupation, c’est de défendre l’identité canadienne dans ce qu’on voit à l’écran quand on utilise les fonds publics. Alors, s’il n’y a pas une certaine défense de qu’est‑ce que c’est, un contenu canadien, que ce soit par des critères objectifs comme qui est le réalisateur, qui est le producteur, qui est le caméraman, qui sont les métiers de postproduction, qui sont… Et des critères où : est‑ce qu’on se reconnaît à l’écran, est‑ce qu’on voit le paysage, est‑ce qu’on est dans des…

1712 Donc, il y a plein de modèles, il y a plein de critères, il y a plein de manières de le faire. Mais, si on ouvre trop sous prétexte que ça va être plus vendable ou plus facile à faire ou peu importe, bien, on va s’effacer. C’est ça notre grande préoccupation. C’est l’effacement. Et, si on utilise les fonds publics, bien, on devrait encourager le contenu canadien.

1713 Si c’est des fonds privés puis qu’il n’y a pas un dollar canadien, vous pouvez bien faire ce que vous voulez.

1714 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci. Je vous entends. Ce n’était pas exactement ça ma question.

1715 M^me GUÈVREMONT : O.K.

1716 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Ma question, c’était davantage : est‑ce qu’on devrait refléter dans la définition elle‑même les spécificités propres au genre du document. Et j’avais donné comme exemple l’exemple qui nous avait été donné par l’Observatoire. Alors, peut‑être que vous pouvez me revenir. Je sais qu’on court…

1717 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Oui.

1718 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …on manque de temps, là. Parce que je serais intéressée de savoir si, effectivement, ce type de flexibilité dans l’application…

1719 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Oui.

1720 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …de critères est quelque chose qui serait porteur pour le documentaire en particulier.

1721 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Oui.

1722 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : La deuxième chose, et, là, je pense que ce serait peut‑être une demande que je vous fournirais, c’est par rapport au test culturel.

1723 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Oui.

1724 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Vous avez parlé amplement des modèles internationaux.

1725 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Oui.

1726 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Ce sont des modèles qui émergent de pays qui ont un tissu de diversité culturelle franchement différent que le Canada. Et ce qui fait en sorte que c’est souvent difficile d’importer ces modèles et ce qui explique pourquoi le Canada a toujours été un peu mal à l’aise de choisir quel élément de sa diversité reflétait sa culture et quel élément de sa diversité ne reflétait pas sa culture. On pourra avoir une conversation là‑dessus, ça va me faire plaisir.

1727 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Absolument.

1728 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Alors, je serais intéressée peut‑être si vous pouviez nous revenir avec vos réflexions sur les éléments des modèles internationaux qui, à votre avis, seraient applicables au Canada en termes de test culturel. Voilà. C’est ça. Je sais que nos services juridiques vont…

1729 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Avec plaisir.

1730 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …officialiser tout ça. Ça nous aiderait beaucoup.

1731 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Alors, avec plaisir. Puis on va s’assurer de revoir le témoignage hier, là, de l’Observatoire pour être en mesure de bien comprendre. Puis on pourra vous fournir un complément aussi à ce niveau‑là, absolument, ça va nous faire plaisir. Absolument.

1732 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Je vous remercie. Merci beaucoup. C’est tout, Madame la Présidente.

1733 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Alors, juste avant de vous donner le dernier mot, je vais demander à notre collègue dans le service juridique s’il veut ajouter quelque chose.

1734 M^e BEAUMIER : Bonjour. Je voulais seulement confirmer avec vous que vous acceptez de prendre un engagement à répondre à la question de la vice‑présidente Théberge concernant des précisions sur les autres modèles de test culturel à l’étranger qui seraient applicables au Canada ainsi que sur les commentaires de l’Observatoire national du documentaire, et, s’il vous plaît, d’ici le 4 juin.

1735 M^me GUÈVREMONT : D’ici quatre jours?

1736 M^e BEAUMIER : Le 4 juin.

1737 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Ah, 4 juin.

1738 M^e BEAUMIER : Oui.

1739 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Oui, O.K. Oui, j’accepte.

1740 M^e BEAUMIER : Merci.

1741 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. On vous cède la parole. Merci.

1742 M^me GUÈVREMONT : Alors, bien, encore une fois, je vous remercie. Je pense que nos messages clés aujourd’hui sont relativement limpides. La culture est vraiment au cœur de l’identité canadienne et de ses récits. Puis la culture ne doit pas être un critère secondaire dans la définition du contenu canadien. C’est l’essence même de ce que c’est.

1743 Le documentaire est un vecteur d’identité nationale, de participation citoyenne et de compréhension collective qui se compare aux nouvelles. Retirer des émissions d’intérêt national compromettrait non seulement son financement et sa diffusion, mais priverait aussi le public d’un miroir essentiel à la compréhension du pays.

1744 Nous avons un grand pays. Nous avons un pays de contrastes. Et il doit être uni par ses histoires.

1745 Merci.

1746 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup.

1747 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. I will now invite Irene Berkowitz to come to the presentation table. When you are ready, you may begin. You just need to press on the grey button, please.

Présentation

1748 MS. BERKOWITZ: Thank you. Chairperson Eatrides, Commissioners, CRTC leadership, thank you for inviting me.

1749 First, a disclaimer. I am here in my role as an independent researcher and subject matter expert. As an academic, I am not here representing any organization.

1750 To begin, the title of my presentation is Incentivize and Reward Audience.

1751 Ten years ago, I presented right here, at Let’s Talk TV and was named in the main content decision. Since then, I’ve dedicated my work to a goal: helping modernize Canadian content for the global era. A decade of evidence‑based research reflects my Ph.D., the only doctorate on Canadian showrunners, which solved the key problem: low audience. My book, Mediaucracy, adds global policy approaches and much more public work ‑‑ more research, op‑eds, podcasts, and speaking.

1752 But my purpose today: cut through all the noise with a clear‑eyed vision that meets this moment, including Trump.

1753 My message is simple: use the point system to incentivize and reward audience. Why? Well, we’ve built a world‑class media workforce. And that is done. Our chronic pain point in three words: low audience, audience, audience. Our CanCon was well built to increase supply and not meet demand. Its forcing function is volume, not reach. In my research, a Canadian network exec worried, “If you can make an okay show and get renewed, why make a great one?” Another exec put it like this: “I don’t see the incentive to prove the content is market worthy.”

1754 So let’s not tweak points built for an old era, and let’s redefine our purpose. What should it be? Increase audience. But how? The answer has to reflect strength, solve for weakness, and we must use this moment to add a value proposition for public funds that’s rooted in cultural as well as market value, as we were just talking.

1755 I solved this puzzle using economic value chain analysis, and here’s my solve: a new goal, what I call globality, which is global reach with popular content; a new strategy, policy that incentivizes and rewards audience to get there; and the critical path, we get there with a producer‑accessed, platform‑agnostic, sliding‑scale, audience‑driven point system.

1756 Let me be clear: this goal does no harm to what we’ve built. It’s additive. It would increase audience, enrich stakeholders, and reduce reliance on subsidies. We could approach this goal with two policy instruments. Just a brief look to know what’s there.

1757 Expanded point systems: An expanded point system modernizes CanCon with a flexible, non‑mandatory structure. So projects would achieve CanCon full bragging rights with 20, 25, or 30 points, any combo. More points, more funding.

1758 Key innovations: Four points, a Canadian showrunner, critical to audience; four points, a Canadian global distributor, critical to audience; four or five points if the show takes place in Canada past, present, or future and/or is based on Canadian IP. The industrial roles remain, but they are weighted to help move us past a goal achieved towards a new one.

1759 You may be surprised to learn our 10‑point system, which I believe is the oldest, has the least points and is least flexible of 10 peer countries. Some of them were just mentioned. At 30 points, we’d still be second lowest. Points range from 18 to 210. All have cultural tests. None have mandatory IP ownership.

1760 Here’s another idea: G‑score could be a drama bonus for showrunners and distributors. Why? It’s important because drama is more than half our CanCon, the driver of soft power. Reputation sure helps producers get better meetings and better deals.

1761 Both proposals are ready to embrace the real work of real‑world collaboration, revision, consensus, and even testing.

1762 Why now? Now because we are late. Countries like the UK, Denmark, Korea have already seized global attention with shows that we could all name. Now because this is no time to abandon our creators. They have earned policy that pushes them to potential. Now because this proceeding seems like it may be our last chance to modernize. As for Trump, no matter what happens with trade, I think we can all agree now is the time for strong market‑driven CanCon.

1763 I’ll close with clarity. Canada’s problem is not creative. We totally outpace in talent. But follow our money. It’s now outdated and misaligned to compete on a global stage. The thing is if we agree on a goal, actually, the rest is details. In the words of another exec, “We made our system; we can change it.” Let’s do that ‑‑ take success to next level with the only media model that has ever worked: audience, audience, audience.

1764 Thank you very much for inviting me. I look forward to your questions.

1765 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your submissions. Thank you very much for taking the time to be here with us this morning to present and also to have a discussion with the Panel. So I will turn things over to the Vice‑Chair. Thank you.

1766 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

1767 MS. BERKOWITZ: Thank you for inviting me.

1768 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Hi.

1769 MS. BERKOWITZ: Hi.

1770 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Nice to meet you.

1771 MS. BERKOWITZ: You too.

1772 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you for coming here, and thank you for proposing an alternative system. Very few intervenors did so, and so it’s very useful for us.

1773 I have a series of pointy questions and broad questions, if you would allow me.

1774 MS. BERKOWITZ: My pleasure.

1775 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Maybe I’ll start with the pointy. So in your proposal, you note that the showrunner position is, in your view, the most important job in long‑form television. We’ve heard for the past two days that the showrunner concept is one that is not necessarily present across the market, in particular in the French market. But you also indicate that the showrunner, following the rationale that there are no mandatory positions in your definition in your scale, so you indicate that the showrunner doesn’t have to be Canadian. But if they are, the position would be awarded four points.

1776 So given the importance of this position, could you explain how a production with a non‑Canadian showrunner could still be considered culturally relevant and reflective of Canadian values?

1777 MS. BERKOWITZ: Sure. First of all, I think if our overall goal is to make Canadian content more market‑driven and less reliant on subsidies, the reason this is all non‑mandatory is the one thing that would count more than anything, given you have a Canadian producer and the show is available in the Canadian audience, that you have the best possible show person in charge of the show.

1778 The reason this role evolved like it did is because the top writer, who actually controls the writing, casting, hiring, and production if they’re the showrunner and is hired by the producer or the financier, is best‑positioned to impact the audience success. I mean, we can all name them, the top showrunners.

1779 So there are like 14 other categories. There’s a writer category, an editor, a director category, and a cultural category where the show could take place in Canada or be based on Canadian IP. All the industrial incentives remain. So it’s I think perfectly acceptable for this person not to be Canadian if they’re the best person for the job because it also incentivizes in that writing room the training of Canadian showrunners because there will be Canadians in that writing room.

1780 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: But there is a scenario where the showrunner isn’t Canadian, the writer is not Canadian, perhaps the show takes place in Canada. I’m just trying to reconcile how you are ‑‑ because I understand what you are presenting. This is a model that is based on global success and marketing and visibility.

1781 But the model, to work, also has to be consistent with our legislative framework and obligations. And there’s a series of public policy objectives in the Broadcasting Act in regards to social unity, to cultural diversity, to representation of cultural diversity, to official languages, to a representation of Indigenous, et cetera, et cetera.

1782 I’m trying to reconcile your model, which is purely, as I understand it ‑‑ and correct me if I’m wrong ‑‑ economic‑driven, with something that also caters to other public policy objectives. And so some of the scenarios in combining the positions, because none of them are mandatory, may put us, perhaps ‑‑ and correct me if I’m wrong ‑‑ put us in a position where we are not able to reflect the public policy objectives of the Act. Am I understanding this correctly?

1783 MS. BERKOWITZ: Well, let me first say, this is part of the sort of in‑depth collaborative process that would be my dream, you know, to look forward to.

1784 Let me use a couple of examples. First, I had an MA student from India, a woman who came over and told us during the pandemic that she got ‑‑ right after the pandemic, that she got through the pandemic watching Schitt’s Creek, which to her emanated Canadian values. What they are, maybe we can’t put them in a closed little box, but maybe they are diversity, maybe they are the way people interact, maybe they’re a certain sense of humour.

1785 I also would like to bring up North of North, which is an amazing show and has made it to the top 10 on Netflix.

1786 So I don’t think ‑‑ and I do think also that, you know, if you want to look at diversity, I do not ‑‑ I think this goal is totally complementary to diversity because I think maybe Canada has kind of taught the streamers the power of diversity. And we maybe can learn from them the power of trying to meet audience. I believe that if something makes me laugh or cry, it will probably make someone in Nigeria or France or Iran laugh or cry. I think audiences are more alike than different. In Canada we kind of know that because we are a very diverse country.

1787 So I don’t see these goals as oppositional in any way. I think they’re mutually reinforcing. In fact, Ted Sarandos, the co‑CEO of Netflix, has gone on record saying that local authenticity is a high value for their company because it has gotten them $2 billion of revenue, and they actively seek authentic storytelling from around the world. So I don’t see these values as in any way at odds.

1788 But it’s a little bit of a different question of whether we need to make adjustments in the point system to allow for the type of exceptions that you were talking about. Like I’m not sure how to answer that in this moment. Those are very good questions.

1789 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: We try.

1790 Maybe an additional pointy question going back to your scale ‑‑

1791 MS. BERKOWITZ: Sure, yeah, I look forward to this.

1792 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: So you award in your proposal four points if whether a story takes place in Canada or that is based on ancillary rights to Canadian author material in any media. How would that work in a practical sense? Would a hundred per cent of the story have to be set in Canada? Is it 50 per cent?

1793 MS. BERKOWITZ: Those are another good question. I haven’t thought of breaking it down at that detail. But I think, you know, a majority of the story makes sense in terms of that. And in terms I tried to think ‑‑ we need a cultural test. All countries have it. I don’t think anyone wants to put a subjective definition on such an important term like culture, which is, as was just said, always evolving.

1794 But if it takes place in Canada past, present, or future or it’s based on a Margaret Atwood novel or a Shania Twain song, then I think that is worth something in terms of passing a cultural test. And I think, yes, without an hour discussion at a round table, I think a majority, 51 per cent of the screen story takes place in Canada.

1795 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Maybe we can follow up with you ‑‑

1796 MS. BERKOWITZ: Yeah, for sure.

1797 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ in a request for information so that ‑‑

1798 MS. BERKOWITZ: My dream.

1799 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ we can make sure that your position is on the public record. Would that be okay with you ‑‑

1800 MS. BERKOWITZ: Yeah, absolutely.

1801 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: How would your model incentivize international co‑pros? I mean, we certainly know that in Canada co‑pros and international partnerships are particularly important and a way to broaden the audience, to increase global reach, but also to get, you know, money on the table to be able to produce high‑quality content. We talked extensively over the past two days around the importance of international partnership for kids programming, for example. How would your approach, you know, better support that kind of endeavour that is, as we’ve been told, quite important for the Canadian industry?

1802 MS. BERKOWITZ: Thank you for that question. It’s actually a very interesting one.

1803 So first of all, children’s programming in particular is one of Canada’s best exports. It’s really well‑known around the world, and I wish it was ‑‑ so yeah, very well‑known around the world.

1804 My understanding of co‑productions ‑‑ and please correct me if I’m wrong ‑‑ is that the Canadian portion is treated as Canadian content. So this flexible point system, given that it would be more like the other point systems around the world, would actually maybe better align with the point systems that the other countries are undertaking.

1805 But I don’t know that it was ‑‑ to be honest, I don’t think it was ‑‑ I didn’t think about creating this point system specifically to incentivize co‑productions. Yeah. Okay, thank you.

1806 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much. I will turn things over to Commission Paquette.

1807 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you, and hi.

1808 MS. BERKOWITZ: Hi. Thank you.

1809 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I would like to come back just for one question on the issue of the cultural elements, because we’ve had a very interesting quick discussion with the NFB just before you, and ‑‑

1810 MS. BERKOWITZ: I loved it.

1811 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And I see that in the point system that you propose, you suggest, as my colleague said, to allow four points out of 24 if a story takes place in Canada. Does it mean, as an example, that a science fiction movie that happens in space wouldn’t have the four points, wouldn’t qualify for the cultural elements, or a cartoon, as I was giving as an example? I guess the answer is yes. And my question is more why would that be, and is there a danger that there will be an impact on the creation itself if we put too many criteria on the cultural element side?

1812 MS. BERKOWITZ: Well, okay, I am not sure I understand your question because if it’s in space, that’s not Canada.

1813 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, so it wouldn’t be considered ‑‑ even if it is created and written by a Canadian, even if the story is created in Canada, if it happens ‑‑ if it’s a science fiction movie happening in space, it wouldn’t qualify? Is that what I can understand?

1814 MS. BERKOWITZ: For the ‑‑ for the ...?

1815 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: The points.

1816 MS. BERKOWITZ: For the points? It’s actually a very interesting question. I am thinking of a Canadian space crew in the future that launches into space. And I guess, you know, this is one of those other like exceptions that might prove the rule would have to be decided. But I mean, I think that would probably qualify.

1817 What I’m looking for is, I mean, not all future is that far in the future. And I just thought, well, if it takes place in Canada, and then I thought, Well, I should elucidate a period drama in the past, in the present, or sometime in the future. I’m not a hundred per cent sure how to answer your question. Can I think about it a little bit ‑‑

1818 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And I understand. It’s not an easy ‑‑

1819 MS. BERKOWITZ: Yeah, it’s like one of those ‑‑

1820 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: It’s not an easy question.

1821 MS. BERKOWITZ: Mm‑hmm.

1822 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And one last question. At the moment in our ecosystem we have different definitions applying, depending on what kind of certification we want to obtain. Like there’s one for CPE, the CRTC decisions, there’s another definition to access tax credits and financing. And you suggest in your intervention to link the definition with the idea of investment. Have you in your work considered having different levels of definition depending on what you want to obtain as a benefit to the system? Or do you see the same definition applying at every level of the ecosystem?

1823 MS. BERKOWITZ: Thank you for the question. Let me just make sure I understand it. Are you speaking to the 10 out of 10 versus 6 out of 10 points, or asking about the global distributor category?

1824 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: No, I think my question comes from the fact that you link ‑‑ you said that there’s an idea of investment. The more you invest, the more you should get certification. I don’t know how to phrase that, but the investment of a stakeholder seems to be an important factor that you consider. And I was wondering, at the moment, it’s a bit like this, if you want to qualify for CPE, as an example, you don’t need to own the copyright on your content. But if you want to have access to funding or tax credits, you need to own the copyright on the content. So I was wondering have you thought about the different definition that could be different at different levels?

1825 MS. BERKOWITZ: Okay. I hope I answer your question; I apologize if I still don’t. I think we’re verging into the territory of the IP ownership. And the reason this is in a discrete point system is that I do believe that the way we have been ‑‑ first of all, it’s been a very contentious discussion around IP ownership, and I’m very aware of that discussion. And Canadians have kind of come about this to the understanding they have very legitimately, because in the past, when the system was invented, way before anyone thought about global distribution, the local broadcaster bought the rights and gave a licence fee, and the Canadian producer got to keep the distribution rights or IP ‑‑ no one can take away your copyright ‑‑ because they needed to sell it to the rest of the world.

1826 Now we have a global marketplace. And the reason I have global distributors in there ‑‑ formally, maybe it should go ahead of showrunner, and it should be called /studio/financier ‑‑ because what I’m looking at is definitely, to get any public funding, you have to have, I would think, a Canadian producer and access to the Canadian audience. So that’s not even on the point system; that’s table stakes to qualify for the point system. But what I’m trying to incentivize here is the studio system which we really under‑incentivize or never incentivize because we had the broadcasters who were sort of a quasi‑fill‑in for that.

1827 So coming back to what I think you might be asking ‑‑ and I do apologize if I’m getting it wrong ‑‑ is that it seems to me that there’s a compromise or a collaborative argument to be made that if I’m a financier for the rest of the world, and I come in and I give your production $10 million to produce or doing that, I’m doing that in the way it would be done in pharma or auto that in return I get the right to exploit that product around the world. And I care very much if it works. So therefore, I might own the exploitation rights or the IP proportional to the amount of investment, if it’s 50 per cent, 51 per cent. That’s really all I’m getting at.

1828 I’m not taking away anyone’s copyright, but to align the way we do business with the way the business is actually done, you know, and many businesses are done. The person who does R&D gets the right to ROI. If we want to get into my Harvard‑based value chain economic analysis ‑‑

1829 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah, okay.

1830 MS. BERKOWITZ: But does that answer your question?

1831 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah. Thank you.

1832 MS. BERKOWITZ: Yeah, a proportional investment in IP.

1833 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. No more questions.

1834 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. I think we’ve covered quite a bit of ground this morning. Perhaps we could turn things back over to you for any concluding thoughts. Thank you.

1835 MS. BERKOWITZ: Yeah. Just to say thank you so much for inviting me. This means a lot to me. I think this is a once‑in‑a‑generation moment we have here to modernize. And I’ve been at this awhile. I think in 2017 I was quoted in CBC.ca that I said something like, When this disruption settles, Canadian producers will have the same business model as producers all over the world. Make great content, exploit it globally.

1836 Our system was made in a time of local markets only, and it was made to correct for that market. Now we have the entire world as our oyster, and we need to figure out how to reach that world.

1837 So I had to laugh, as my last word, yesterday when I was looking at the ‑‑ just confirming the address, and I looked at the title of this hearing, it’s Canadian Content: How to Support the Creation and Distribution of Canadian Content. And those are the two things I’m trying ‑‑ exact two things I’m trying to incentivize, the R&D and the ROI, because we have actually succeeded big time, world class perfectly in creating this production which is the middle of the value chain. So now we need to incentivize the creation and distribution ‑‑ incentivize and reward audience. And that’s how you do it.

1838 Thank you so much for inviting me.

1839 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for taking the time to participate.

1840 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now take a 10‑minute break and be back at 10:15.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 04

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 16

1841 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back.

1842 We will now hear the presentation of Corus Entertainment Inc.

1843 Please introduce yourself and your colleagues and you may begin.

Présentation

1844 MR. REEB: Good morning. Thank you.

1845 Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs and Commissioners. My name is Troy Reeb. I am the Co‑Chief Executive Officer at Corus Entertainment. Joining me today are my colleagues: Rachel Nelson, who is Vice President of Original Programming and Head of Corus Studios; Matt Thompson, who I think you know, Vice President and Associate General Counsel; and Doug Spence, Vice President of Finance.

1846 Corus is very proud to be Canada’s largest independent pure‑play media and content company. We are the operator of 81 licensed broadcasting stations and services. We are a long‑standing supporter of Canadian content, a significant employer of Canadian creators, and one of the country’s largest journalism organizations through Global News.

1847 We’re pleased to be part of this ambitious and aspirational proceeding. It is the next step in a long journey to build a regulatory framework that can effectively serve the policy objectives of the act in the digital age.

1848 Back in the old closed system, supporting policy objectives was Canadian broadcasters’ job alone, and it was a burden that we could bear, but those days are over and they’ve been over for more than 10 years. In today’s open system, domestic players remain strictly regulated while their larger international digital competitors are not. This imbalance has become untenable for Corus and other Canadian private broadcasters whose financial challenges are well documented. To ensure a viable Canadian‑controlled broadcasting system as Parliament intended, Canadian broadcasters need meaningfully lower regulatory obligations and equitable rules for our foreign competitors, and we need them as fast as possible.

1849 Fortunately, the Commission began to create a more level playing field with its initial base contribution decision in 2024, and it should continue that work here today.

1850 To that end, Corus is proposing a contribution framework that would build on existing CRTC policy, promote fairness between traditional and online undertakings, support a more sustainable Canadian broadcasting system, and allow different parties to contribute in different ways.

1851 In the interest of fairness, we recommend that all video‑broadcasting undertakings who generate over $25 million in Canada be assigned an annual 20 percent financial contribution requirement. The obligation should apply on an ownership group basis and include both traditional and online broadcasting revenue from Canadian and foreign players. We believe that 20 percent represents an equitable middle point for Canadian and international players, which would ensure continued robust support for Canadian content, including news.

1852 As we said at the CRTC’s public hearing in 2023, Corus accepts that our online services, like STACKTV, might attract regulatory requirements when traditional broadcasters’ obligations are recalibrated. As we enter the recalibration phase, Corus’ proposed contribution framework includes Canadian online platforms.

1853 For their part, international streamers have wrongly argued that Canadian broadcasters should have higher contribution requirements than the streamers do. Their proposals misapply the Broadcasting Act. They lack any rational policy foundation, and they would cripple Canadian competition. As Commissioner Levy rightly observed at the 2023 public hearing, “Canadian broadcasters have been carrying the freight for a long time.” Streamers would have us continue doing so at grave risk to our business, at risk to the Canadian‑controlled system and to Canadian journalism and culture. That would benefit the streamers and the streamers alone.

1854 MR. SPENCE: Though Corus proposes a common contribution level for online and traditional video undertakings we believe different classes of undertakings should be able to meet their requirements in different ways.

1855 First, a group of stand‑alone online undertakings should retain their five percent base contributions as allocated by the Commission. They should have an additional 15 percent obligation to spend on certified Canadian programs of their choice, and benefit from credits on indigenous productions, productions from members of diverse and equity‑deserving groups and other productions designated by the CRTC. Over and above base contributions should also be eligible for credits.

1856 Second, groups that include licensed conventional television undertakings should have a 20 percent obligation to spend on certified Canadian programs of their choice, but this should include a minimum spend on news. As Corus has stated before, delivering local news is a core function of Canadian over‑the‑air broadcasters, and for local news to survive, this must remain the case. These groups should benefit from the same expenditure credits I referenced before, as well as credits for over‑and‑above expenditures on news.

1857 Finally, groups that include some combination of licensed discretionary services and online undertakings should have a 20 percent obligation to spend on certified programs of their choice. They should also benefit from expenditure credits, except for news‑related credits.

1858 Special considerations may apply for groups of programming undertakings authorized for mandatory distribution, and the CRTC may want to retain reasonable original French‑language programming requirements on groups that include French‑language services. Those levels should be determined as part of tailored contribution arrangements.

1859 The panel will notice that none of the above include mandatory spending on Programs of National Interest. We agree with the CRTC’s preliminary view that “the current approach to PNI is no longer needed.” PNI spending quotas are relics of a closed system where the CRTC regulated channel formats. They are increasingly costly and, thus, an unprofitable burden that struggling Canadian broadcasters can no longer afford, with no evidence that they are in fact of greater national interest than programs in other genres, like the national news.

1860 Despite the aggressive lobbying of creative industry groups, Parliament and the Governor in Council deliberately chose to exclude PNI from the dozens of objectives in the act and direction. The Commission should follow suit and cast aside its dated PNI policy.

1861 MS. NELSON: Going forward, Canadian PNI will still benefit from the support of an even better financed public broadcaster, international streamers who have the resources to make these programs profitably and continued public funding.

1862 However, reform in this area is urgent for private Canadian broadcasters who have seen their Canada Media Fund performance envelope decline drastically in recent years. In Corus’ case, we have seen a 74 percent drop in our allocation over the last five years, including an almost 50 percent drop this year. These declines have stemmed largely from CMF policy changes, which have invited more parties to trigger the funding at the expense of robust and reliable envelopes for private regulated Canadian players. In the current system, private Canadian broadcasters rely on CMF‑administered funds to help finance costly mandated PNI projects and mitigate some of their losses on those programs, but the CMF is moving rapidly away from this model. The CRTC must keep pace and eliminate PNI quotas as soon as possible.

1863 Regardless of this proceeding, we will continue to work with independent producers and commission Canadian programs in different genres, including scripted and documentary, to meet our business needs and market demand.

1864 The CRTC should not replace PNI quotas with new independent production quotas as some urge. These are unnecessary because the Canadian production sector is predominantly arm’s length from broadcasters, and the CMF program guidelines cap spending on affiliated productions. This means independent production companies will continue to make significant contributions with or without regulatory intervention. At Corus, we work closely with our independent partners on projects like “Scott’s Vacation House Rules”, “Rock Solid Builds” and “House of Ali”, which are not subject to independent quotas.

1865 New independent production quotas, and quotas more broadly, would also conflict with the policy direction which encourages the Commission to reduce regulatory burdens and use more incentives.

1866 MR. THOMPSON: The Commission is also reconsidering how to define a Canadian program. While the CRTC’s proposal is workable, we’re concerned it would drive more fragmentation in the system without meaningfully enhancing the Canadian quality of a production.

1867 For example, moving to a nine out of 15 model would depart from the six out of 10 scale that CAVCO continues to use, creating tension between the two frameworks. It would do so, in part, by adding points for showrunners, which is an inconsistent role on Canadian productions that is generally filled by writers and directors who are already represented on the points scale. We are also concerned by the suggestion that when productions have fewer than 15 key creative roles, 100 percent of the remaining roles would have to be filled by Canadians, because that would raise the threshold above current levels.

1868 For their part, international streamers and studios propose a 29‑point framework that would distort a certified Canadian program beyond recognition. At a time when it’s more important than ever for Canadians to tell Canadian stories, their objective is transparent: water down the certification framework so much that they can count the location‑based service productions they are already doing against their future obligations. Worse still, they would again set an unjustifiably lower bar for themselves than the Canadian broadcasters who have been carrying the freight for decades.

1869 Their proposal would treat Canadian ownership of intellectual property and financial participation as an afterthought, despite clear guidance from Parliament in the act and the Governor in Council in the direction that it should be a priority.

1870 By contrast, in the interest of harmonization, Corus recommended that the CRTC adopt CAVCO’s approach of requiring copyright to be held by a Canadian producer for 25 years, Canadians to control the initial licensing of exploitation rights, and Canadians to take 25 percent of the net profits from exploitation in non‑Canadian markets.

1871 We still believe that model would align with the act and direction, but after reviewing the comments of other parties in this proceeding, we believe other proposals could do so as well. For example, we believe a proposal from Blue Ant Media has promise. It would permit an online broadcaster to meet a lower points total or avoid mandatory points altogether where Canadians hold 100 percent of the IP and exploitation rights in a production and there is a meaningful exclusive rights window on a Canadian broadcast platform.

1872 MR. REEB: Through this process, the Commission is trying to build something that can last: a regulatory framework that can continue to support Canadian content, employment and culture while meeting the needs of modern Canadian audiences.

1873 At Corus, we are focused on building for the future, too. Despite our challenges, we’re confident that we can continue supporting a thriving, creative and distinctly Canadian media ecosystem. We are leveraging our long track record for making outstanding news and lifestyle content that people love, bringing that content to audiences wherever they are, and forming lasting, mutually beneficial partnerships with global media organizations and Canadian independent producers, all of which will fuel a growing business that can continue to be a part of a Canadian‑controlled broadcasting system for many years to come.

1874 That is our plan and we can achieve it, but it cannot happen without a fair and equitable regulatory framework.

1875 Corus thanks the Commission for the opportunity to appear. We hope you’ll consider our recommendations.

1876 We would be pleased, of course, to answer your questions.

1877 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you so much to Corus for being here. I know that the panel has a lot of questions, so I will quickly dive in and kick things off for the Commission.

1878 Perhaps, starting at a high level, one of the key takeaways of your intervention is that domestic and international players should have comparable contribution requirements. Of course, you’ve seen from other parties, like MPAC, you know, there’s a view that ‑‑ they point to the act and say that there’s distinctions and so there should be different treatment. The question is: how does your approach to comparable contributions align with the legislation?

1879 MR. REEB: I’m going to talk at the high level. Then I am going to pass it to Matt, who I’m sure will want to jump in on how it aligns with the legislation.

1880 We are at a time when there are not just threats to our cultural sovereignty, but indeed threats to our sovereignty as a country. It has never been more important to ensure that the job of telling Canadian stories rests with Canadians. While certainly we should be sharing our stories with the world, protecting the sovereignty of Canadians in being able to share their own stories, and the privileges that come from the system when it comes to supporting the storytelling, if it has to be put on one side or the other, we’re going to side with the ability of Canadian producers and Canadian broadcasters to be able to tell Canadian stories.

1881 I will let Mr. Thompson speak to the legal question.

1882 MR. THOMPSON: Thanks for the opportunity to address this. It’s one we are eager to address.

1883 The streamers’ position on this issue we believe is rooted in a misinterpretation of sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(f.1) of the Broadcasting Act. I think the core of their position is to treat those provisions as apples to apples and to focus on two clauses “maximum” and “predominant use” in the case of Canadian broadcasters, and “greatest practicable use” in the case of foreign streamers, but there’s a lot more to those two clauses.

1884 In the case of the Canadian broadcasters, which is 3(1)(f), it refers specifically to making:

“...maximum...and...predominant use, of Canadian creative and other human resources in the creation, production and presentation of programming”.

1885 We live that ideal every day as a Canadian broadcaster, not just, by the way, in the creation, production and presentation of Canadian programming most clearly seen through our news operations, but also through our presentation of foreign programming. Our Canadian employees, our Canadian human resources in the making of our programming accessible for Canadian audiences, describing video, adding closed‑captioning, the process of delivering foreign programming to air, those are Canadian human resources that we are deploying every single day to deliver on that objective in the act

1886 In the case of 3(1)(f.1), which applies to international players, it’s making a significant and equitable contribution to Canadian programming and making greatest practical use of them. In that clause, there is a specific reference to Canadian programming. That is a point of distinction I would just like to draw the panel’s attention to. One clause refers to Canadian programming and one clause refers to all programming.

1887 Modern principles of statutory interpretation, if you’ll indulge me, require us to take a contextual and purposeful interpretation of a clause consistently in a way that’s harmonious with the overall scheme of the act. We think it’s really indicative of Parliament’s intention to look at 3(1)(e) of the legislation as well, which refers to all broadcasting undertakings, Canadian and foreign, and there’s a specific reference to “Canadian programming” there, but all parties should make appropriate contributions, again treating the undertakings in an apples‑to‑apples way in 3(1)(e) that you don’t see in 3(1)(f). To underscore this point, we think, as part of the overall legislative scheme, we have to consider the policy direction.

1888 Section 9 of the policy direction states, at a systemic level, that all players in the system again should make maximum contributions to support the creation, presentation and production of all programming.

1889 Taken together, we do not see a legislative foundation for any differential treatment through regulated contributions between foreign and Canadian players.

1890 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for that response.

1891 You support using some of CAVCO’s rules to define a Canadian program, like ensuring a Canadian owns the copyright for 25 years. You’ve seen that other parties, like Netflix, for example, prefer a more flexible approach that encourages partnerships and investment while supporting various business models. We heard from you this morning in your remarks that you are open to other proposals that have been put forward. You point to Blue Ant.

1892 The question is: how can we, at the CRTC, support Canadian creative control while ensuring that the policy framework is responsive to all types of players in the system?

1893 MR. THOMPSON: I think the act is very clear that different business models should be taken into account, but it’s also very clear that Canadian ownership and exploitation of rights is also very important. The act, and the direction for that matter, place a pretty strong emphasis on this point and leave it to the Commission to figure out how to operationalize it. Congratulations to you to be left with that task. I think what you’re getting at, Madam Chair, is there are multiple ways to achieve this and perhaps there are different ways for parties to achieve it.

1894 Just to take it back a step if I could, why we drove our position primarily on aligning with CAVCO is another provision of the direction which said the Commission should attempt to harmonize its rules with the funding agency and tax credit rules, so we thought why not try and make it as seamless as possible between the two regimes, mindful that, yeah, it places this emphasis on IP ownership and exploitation.

1895 The question about how we can appeal the different business models, though we didn’t comment on this specifically in our written submission, we would be open to maintaining the current rules around special recognition co‑ventures, which do not ‑‑ that the Commission has as part of its framework, not part of CAVCO’s framework. Those rules do contemplate certain situations where there isn’t necessarily Canadian wholly‑owned IP that may form a part of a final framework that you develop, but I think as an initial step it’s important to place a heavy emphasis on Canadian ownership of IP.

1896 The Blue Ant model that we pointed to does that while affording a measure of flexibility to foreign undertakings to essentially decide, right, what is a more workable situation for them.

1897 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. And maybe we can drill down a little bit more on this issue of IP.

1898 Intervenors like Amazon and Apple argue that the Canadian ownership of IP should not be required but should, instead, be encouraged through CPE credits. And you know, obviously others believe that it’s ‑‑ ownership is crucial for preserving control.

1899 Is there a middle ground in terms of sharing IP and, if so, is that something that you can walk us through? You know, how would that look and how would parties benefit from that?

1900 MR. THOMPSON: So Madam Chair, you’re interested in a middle ground between no IP requirements and fully owned Canadian IP.

1901 I think ‑‑ I really would point you back to the model we’ve already discussed, which is a Blue Ant model, the model that they proposed, that would align ownership of IP with the points framework, not necessarily bringing it into the CPE expenditure framework.

1902 I think that’s ‑‑ first of all, I think that is the proper location for any IP related requirements in the future framework in the definition of a Canadian program. And again, we do think there are opportunities for foreign streamers to contribute to the objectives of the Act potentially through the SR co‑venture model against future obligations that they might have under an expenditure requirement.

1903 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

1904 So you spoke about PNI this morning. You mentioned that in your intervention as well. You support the CRTC’s preliminary view to eliminate PNI expenditures.

1905 You’ve seen that many other parties like the SO, CMPA argue that special support is still required for programming like drama, comedy, music. And so the question is, has the market changed? Do you think that the market has changed sufficiently for these types of programs to continue being made or does the Commission still need a tool to support them?

1906 MS. NELSON: We do feel that the market has changed and we are happy to have supported many, many scripted productions amongst the years and documentary productions and feel that there is a robust market out there. There are other players that contribute heftily to those particular genres.

1907 And for us, when we look at our programming, we look across our channels each year for the needs per channel and the needs of our business, so we are hoping to be able to do that with some freedom and flexibility knowing that, as I said in my opening statements, that doesn’t mean we will not do what we’re calling programs of national interest still It means that we will have years where we do two or three dramas and years where we focus on our lifestyle channels as we are now with our new brands.

1908 So it’s really about a flexible approach, but we do believe that the market can bear without special supports and quotas.

1909 MR. REEB: I would just add if you look at what’s happened over the last number of years where the streamers have not had regulatory requirements on them to do PNI shows, by and large what they’ve commissioned in Canada have been dramas, they have been scripted series. This is an area, obviously, that the public broadcaster plays in a significant way. And the way that audience trends have been moving, audiences now that we’re in a bingeable world are far more likely to watch scripted programs or increasingly likely to watch bingeable programs, scripted programs on on‑demand platforms. We know that from our own experience with Stack TV. And they’re much more likely to watch unscripted programs, sports, news, reality, lifestyle programs on linear platforms.

1910 MR. THOMPSON: If I could just add a couple of points, Madam Chair, on this.

1911 The aggregate industry data actually points to a fairly robust continued investment in PNI. The total volume of Canadian content production in the fiction genre, according to the CMPA profile ‑‑ most recent CMPA profile report indicates it’s highest level investment in fiction ‑‑ second‑highest level of fiction program investment in 2023‑2024 in the last 10 years.

1912 Upwards of 68 percent of the online first audiovisual productions who were certified by CAVCO in the same year were in the fiction genre, so this remains ‑‑ with continuous involvement both from broadcasters and streamers and the public broadcaster in a robust funding framework, we do think there is a healthy ecosystem there for continued support for these genres.

1913 But I think I couldn’t let this question go by without reinforcing a core point we made on our ‑‑ in our opening remarks. PNI’s not referenced in the Act. It’s not referenced in the direction. And this was not an accident. This was a priority of many groups who were involved in the legislative development process and Parliament elected consciously not to add reference to these programs in the legislation and, as if to reinforce the point, not in the direction.

1914 So we actually believe the current framework is perhaps disproportionately focused on this item given the legislative context.

1915 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that.

1916 Maybe just a few more questions and I will turn things over to my colleagues.

1917 So maybe just starting with news and then I do want to touch on French language programming. But just starting with news, in your intervention you suggested that the Commission should create a baseline contribution for news and then give CPE credits of 150 percent for spending above that baseline. And I’m wondering if there is a possibility that that approach could unintentionally reward companies with the deepest pockets and potentially impact the funding available for other types of programming.

1918 MR. REEB: I think, you know, in a world where you’re rewarded for what you invest, the idea that ‑‑ first, we’re talking about local news. Local news is, I would posit, the most challenged ‑‑ financially challenged genre of programming there is in the system, particularly when it’s the smaller the market gets, the smaller the audience you have to be able to monetize any advertising in. And let’s not forget that local broadcasters lost their monopoly on local advertising long ago. Two‑thirds of advertising in local market now goes to silicon valley companies and not to local media.

1919 So the ‑‑ by far the most challenged genre is local news and the funding we’re talking about is to support local news and not national news. And there’s really ‑‑ there aren’t many worlds in which, you know, suddenly pouring more money into what is the most challenged genre in the system is going to, you know, result in a higher reward proposition.

1920 So it really is about offsetting losses in smaller market local news and not about sort of creating an explosion of profitability.

1921 MR. THOMPSON: And I would just stress that this is over and above what is a commitment to news, that we think is a unique feature of our proposal, and we’ve indicated this over a period of years that we believe this is the core function of conventional television broadcasters and it should remain so. And we wanted to bring something concrete to the Commission with our proposal.

1922 MR. SPENCE: And just a final point on that is that with much of the credit structures there would be a cap to which these could actually contribute to the overall CPE, so in terms of the overall impact it would be mitigated by caps.

1923 MR. REEB: As a Canadian broadcaster that’s, you know, for 60 years plus in some of our stations, made contributions to things that couldn’t end up back on our screens, we kind of look smirkingly at the arguments from some of the streamers that why should they have to be required to contribute to baseline funds from which they can’t necessarily benefit from. That’s called being part of the system.

1924 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. That flows nicely into my next question, which is that ‑‑ and my guess is that we likely know the answer to this, but I’m going to pose it anyway. If we do require spending on news programming, are Canadian broadcasters or non‑Canadian services best suited to make that content in a way that truly benefits Canadians?

1925 And sort of as a sub‑question if I can is, where should the CRTC obligations be in that case in terms of news production and news funding?

1926 MR. REEB: The question on the ‑‑ I’ll let Matt step in on the question of the obligation.

1927 Just in terms of ‑‑ first off, I don’t see any international streamers stepping up to do local news, and that’s exactly what ‑‑ or news at all, and what we’re talking about is the provision of local news in local markets.

1928 Secondly, there is a significant ‑‑ I’m not sure if any of you would like to hand over the ability to tell Canada’s news stories and the support of our democratic institutions to Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch and Jeff Bezos, but I don’t think that’s where the Commission or the government would want to go in terms of how we ensure proper and fair journalism in this country.

1929 So I think it’s more important than ever to ensure that Canadian news is provided at the community level by Canadian companies. I’m not going to say Canadian broadcasters. There are many innovative local news organizations that are springing up in the digital space as well. But for those of us who play in the regulated broadcast space where Canadians can be assured that the news that they’re receiving from Global or CTV or TVA is ‑‑ meets the standards of the RTDNA on the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council and meets standards of objectivity and fairness which are so important in an age that is dominated by social media misinformation, the role of Canadian broadcasters could not be more important.

1930 And then to the actual obligations, Matt.

1931 MR. THOMPSON: Yes. And at the risk of overextending Vice‑Chair Scott’s very apt barbecue metaphor or potluck metaphor from earlier, if news is potato salad in this situation, nobody else is stepping up to bring it besides local broadcasters. I think the evidence on that is absolutely clear and I see no evidence to the contrary.

1932 On where the obligation should live and how they should be structured, Madam Chair, we’re ‑‑ as part of our proposal, international streamers would retain their base contribution requirements as allocated by the CRTC. That includes the portion allocated to the independent local news fund, so that would be a funding obligation on that side.

1933 On the ‑‑ in the lane of broadcasting groups that include conventional broadcasters, we’re talking about direct expenditures on news as of today. The funds have to flow somewhere to produce the end product and, in our view, that should be us.

1934 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. And I see Vice‑Chair typing up, I don’t know, something about barbecues and I don’t know where we’re going after this, but I will turn to him next.

1935 Maybe just to end on a question about French language programming. The question is, really, how do we ensure that French language programming continues to be made and continues to be broadcast across the system.

1936 MR. THOMPSON: So we’re proposing that an original French language requirement may still be a reasonable element of a future contribution framework as applied to groups that include French language services. We think that is a key mechanism to ensure consistent levels of French language production.

1937 The funds to which the Commission has directed base contribution funds have strict ‑‑ many of them ‑‑ I won’t speak for all of them, but many of them certainly have strict breakdowns between French and English language production, so that’s another mechanism as well.

1938 MR. SPENCE: I would just add that I think within our framework we would anticipate that those French obligations would ‑‑ in terms of where groups include both English and French services, the operations of French services would draw an obligation on the French side, English obligations on the English side, and we can comingle those so you wouldn’t have cross‑subsidization of those two obligations.

1939 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

1940 I’m a bit concerned about where this questioning is going to go, but I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott.

1941 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Madam Chair, you’re going to love this one.

1942 So when you were speaking about some of the expanded point system proposals that you said could have a dilutive effect, it actually reminded me of that old meme about fighting 100 duck‑sized horses or one horse‑sized duck. So from the perspective of the Canadian production system but also from the perspective of Canadian audiences, are we better served having or pursuing a smaller number of productions that have more Canadian‑ness or a larger number of productions that have, you know, fewer Canadians in key creative roles?

1943 Because we do have those two levers. We have a lever we can pull in terms of setting the test and a related lever we can pull in terms of calibrating the CPE level. So with those two levers in hand, should we be skewing for more shows with less Canadian‑ness, fewer shows with a higher level of Canadian‑ness?

1944 MR. REEB: I’m going to start on that one, Vice‑Chair. I don’t think it needs to be in the either/or. I think that there can be somewhat of a sliding scale.

1945 We make many smaller shows that are designed for mass appeal to international markets which may, in some subjective interpretation, mean that they have slightly less Canadian‑ness to them despite having, you know ‑‑ many times they’d count as 10 out of 10 on a scale, but they may look a little bit more international, but they are in different genres that are at the ‑‑ kind of at the lower end of the budget scale.

1946 I think the system can be flexible enough to accommodate different definitions, but it is the amount of support that is provided. The amount of support mechanisms, I think, should rise the higher it gets on the scale.

1947 MR. THOMPSON: I don’t have much to add. I would just maybe observe that the expenditure requirements don’t specify a certain number of productions. These are total expenditure requirements and the broadcasters who have those obligations can allocate them as they wish. If it’s to pool the spend on one production, you know, that might make sense for them in the given year.

1948 In our case, we operate 45 television stations and services, and you need a lot of content to fill those airwaves. And so we do place a premium on creating multiple projects that can fill our channels. And so I think allowing us to focus on our business needs from a broadcaster’s standpoint is absolutely crucial.

1949 MS. NELSON: And I would just jump in and say that we’re always weighing those two things, how much do we need to make that ticks every box, how much, as Troy pointed out, can we relax a little bit and still be part of a co‑production that maybe doesn’t hit it over the head as harshly or hardly. But we’re always, again, ebbing and flowing with the different needs of our channels to put the right type of programming on them.

1950 But we do feel strongly that we need to work with producers on their IP, tell, even if it isn’t inherent in the creative, Canadian story, that it employs Canadians, that it’s done by Canadians. And we feel that that is very important and we have done that.

1951 Is there flexibility within that to make a little bit more that maybe doesn’t align perfectly with that, then yes, I think we’re open. But we’re always trying to make that balance happen.

1952 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. And so would you support that sliding scale concept being enshrined in the framework so that those who are ‑‑ those productions that are more Canadian result in more credit or should it be as long as you’re over a certain threshold, like kind of an in or out kind of binary treatment?

1953 MR. THOMPSON: I just want to clarify one point, if I could, Vice‑Chair. When we talk about Canadian‑ness, are we talking about cultural elements, are we talking about a higher number of Canadian people?

1954 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I’m at kind of a more simplistic just in terms of number of points on the scale. Like is a 6 out of 10 worth less than an 8 out of 10 and does that need to be reflected in the credits people are given credit for?

1955 MR. THOMPSON: And the idea would be a higher points score would earn you a credit on your expenditure obligations. Is that ‑‑

1956 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: That’s kind of the concept I’m testing, yeah.

1957 MR. THOMPSON: Well, that’s an interesting question. If it is possible to respond to a request for information on it, I think we would like to give that some thought and we want to approach the question with the thoughtfulness that we think it deserves.

1958 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: That would be wonderful. I’ll just ask staff to follow up on exactly that. Thanks very much.

1959 Thank you, Chair.

1960 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

1961 We’ll go over to Commissioner Paquette.

1962 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hi. So I’d like to come back on the PNI topic.

1963 So you suggest 20 percent CPE requirement. You mentioned that there’s no need for PNI at this point since ‑‑ especially with fiction and maybe documentaries there’s a wide offer already available in the market.

1964 So without PNI requirements and a 20 percent CPE credit which could include news ‑‑ credits for news, isn’t there a danger that private broadcasters like Corus will concentrate maybe on news, maybe on lifestyle and entertainment and that drama content will become only available through international platforms? And isn’t there a danger for Canadian creators of fiction and drama to have only access to have that ‑‑ the only possibility to have their content produced would be to go knock on the door of American international companies?

1965 MR. REEB: Thank you for the question, Commissioner.

1966 I would say there’s not a danger of that precisely because the flexibility we’re looking for is so that our services can cater to the needs of the audiences who use those services. I look at the example of “Séries Plus”, French language service primarily targeted at Quebec. It is very much a scripted service. Its Canadian commissions are in the ‑‑ scripted in the drama space and we’re extremely proud of programs like “Bête Noire” and others that have been very, you know, lauded for their dramatic achievements and I expect those kinds of commissions will continue.

1967 However, looking at the majority of our English language portfolio to maintain PNI requirements which basically require us to over‑index in scripted content for services that don’t use scripted content like our lifestyle services, like history television, you know, which rely on factual reality, this puts ‑‑ I’m sorry, puts bureaucrats in charge instead of audiences. And it becomes an overly prescriptive way to say that ‑‑ of how we should do Canadian content.

1968 We have some of the biggest stars in ‑‑ some of the biggest stars in the world in lifestyle television are names like Brian and Sarah Baumler, Scott McGillivray, Eden Grinshpan, and they’re not just stars in Canada. They are stars in the U.S., they are stars in other territories around the world, and they’re ‑‑ the programs they are in are no less culturally relevant than PNI programs.

1969 So what we would say is that the government, the Order in Council was correct when it said that PNI should not be a priority going forward and what we need to serve our audiences and serve our business as a result is to ensure that those kinds of overly prescriptive handcuffs come off.

1970 MR. THOMPSON: And just to follow on that, we are not talking about getting out of the scripted programming business whatsoever or reducing the ‑‑ what we’re talking about is gaining more flexibility to make decisions for our company, to allocate our resources as we need. We are a private enterprise, a publicly‑traded one, and this is absolutely necessary on a going‑forward basis.

1971 In the most respectful way possible, I would maybe challenge the premise of the question a little bit. I think there is a lot of focus, as to be expected and as appropriate, on the supply side, ensuring a certain amount of production is consistent in specific genres.

1972 I would maybe direct the Commission’s attention to the question of capacity, the capacity of the system to continue to deliver production at those levels.

1973 We have to be realistic about what’s happening in the broadcasting sector. I know the Commission understands as well we haven’t focused on it, but operating income for conventional and discretionary television in English Canada in the last five years has declined by 50 percent, margins down 50 percent.

1974 And PNI programming, fiction programming, according to the Commission’s own data ‑‑ they released a helpful study in 2023, the ‘Harnessing Change’ financial model report observed that in the fiction genre, financial shortfalls are in the 300‑ to 400‑dollar‑a‑year range. I don’t think there’s a serious question that this is not necessarily a profitable programming genre, and we’re here to make clear ‑‑ as clearly as we can ‑‑ we don’t have the capacity to continue to shoulder prescriptive PNI requirements and prescriptive requirements for news.

1975 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: You suggest that the broadcaster could allocate the 20 percent CPE at their discretion between their online services versus their broadcast service. How would you calibrate between what should be online versus what should be on the air? And what would be the role of an online service like STACKTV in this ecosystem?

1976 MR. REEB: First off, I want to just roll it back to where the question began, is, that is for us to say pretty boldly we believe in making contributions to Canadian content. The market has changed substantially in that the viewing of television content, which used to be a somewhat closed system, limited to a number of Canadian broadcasters, is now wide open and global.

1977 It has become commoditized on the viewer side. On the monetization side, while subscription revenue is still somewhat protected, it has become entirely commoditized. We are competing not just against other broadcasters and online streamers, but against the biggest companies in the world, in Facebook and Google.

1978 So, we are working now in a commoditized world where the margin compression that Matt just talked about necessitates a lowering of input obligations, which is why we’ve proposed what we think is a more sustainable number of 20 percent, and we acknowledge if we are going to expect foreign streamers to make contributions on their online services, then Canadians should be prepared to step up and make contributions on our online services as well.

1979 We’ve already come to a clear understanding of how audiences behave. We are experts in this, and we know that to get people to sign up to STACKTV requires that there be titles that they can binge, that are attractive, that are tentpole titles. And then, once they’re in there, many of our younger consumers in particular use STACKTV in the same way they would a cable subscription. Most of the viewing in STACKTV is in fact to linear viewing. They are actually watching our channels the same way they would on the cable dial, but this is a different subset of audiences than we would have through the traditional distribution system.

1980 So, we absolutely don’t reserve one type of content for one platform or the other, but the way that we window that content may be different, and the way we promote that content may be different, because we need to get people to sign up for STACKTV in a different way than they sign up for the value proposition of cable.

1981 So, what I think the Commission can be confident in is in saying, if there is sort of an omnibus 20 percent number for both Canadian and foreign streamers for both linear and online broadcasters, that inside of that, the flexibility to be able to determine the spending of the content will ensure we all have the market demand of getting as big an audience as possible and monetizing those audiences. And that’s where the audiences should be left in charge.

1982 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Maybe one last question. Some intervenors suggested that the participation of a Canadian broadcaster must continue to be mandatory in order to have access to public funding. I was wondering, are partnerships with online services an interesting model for broadcasters? And I mean in production ‑‑ is it something you have experienced, and is this something that would be interesting for broadcasters like Corus?

1983 MS. NELSON: We haven’t experienced it yet, but we know all our colleagues in the streaming world that are here in Canada, and we are in contact with them, and there’s been many ‑‑ a few successful current productions like North of North and other pieces. So, we are not opposed to it in any way, but I think our overarching argument today is that we pay heftily into the system and, while we want to work with our partners, we want to ensure that they pay fairly into the system as well.

1984 MR. REEB: And the other thing I would say, and I am sure you’ll hear this from the producers as well, is that when you’re dealing with global players sometimes with trillion‑dollar market capitalizations, there is a substantial power imbalance. And the maintenance of Canadian IP ownership continues to be very important, not only for our cultural sovereignty, but also for the balancing the power structures in those relationships.

1985 We don’t believe that there needs to be a terms of trade type structure. I don’t think the CRTC wants to go down that route of having to kind of manage commercial relationships between partners, but if we get the balance right off the start in terms of where the IP sits and how it can be exploited, that will ensure that Canadian content is protected, going forward.

1986 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: No more questions.

1987 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

1988 Let’s go to Commissioner Naidoo.

1989 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thanks so much for being here today. I wanted to talk a little bit about your model or your vision, going forward under a new system. Obviously, having Canadian drama and comedy is extremely important. How do you see them as part of your mix for the future, though? Is your focus more though on buying American drama and using that to support Canadian lifestyle and news programming?

1990 MR. REEB: I will start, and then I will ask Rachel to weigh in as well.

1991 There is no doubt Canadians ‑‑ you know, our culture is extremely important. It also is blended to some extent with our neighbours to the south, and where we always find the best success is when we lead with our Canadian foot but recognize that the appetite for global content in this country is somewhat insatiable, especially in the English market.

1992 And because we are in an operation market where we don’t control our schedules thanks to the presence of U.S. ‘four plus ones’ on the local cable dial, and where the border is wide open to international streamers, if we can’t lean into a proper mix of both Canadian and acquired programming, then our business will suffer greatly.

1993 But there is no doubt that, when we look at channels like Home and Flavour, that it is the Canadian content that resonates first with the audiences. It’s what we build the brands around. It’s also what we lose money on, in most cases. And that programming that can be acquired at global scale is often where we can offset those losses that we take on Canadian programming.

1994 It’s the same in local news, a genres you’re very familiar with, Commissioner, in that, in almost every market Global News operates in, we lose money in local news ‑‑ our CRTC returns are pretty clear on that ‑‑ but it is what we put our foot forward with to the people of Lethbridge, to the people of Vancouver, to the people of Halifax. It is how we ensure that they feel that the stories that we’re telling, whether they are from Canada or from around the world, are connected to their community.

1995 And so, that’s kind of how we see the mix of how the Canadian and acquired programming work together. And then, on the specificity around drama and scripted programming, I’ll pass to Rachel.

1996 MS. NELSON: We are always looking for a cadence that suits our channel, and so, while we are a broad‑based commercial television network, the stories that we tell on that network, to have the most success for the audiences we serve, have to fall in line with that. And I think we have a tremendous track record of having done that for the last two decades, with lots of shows, from Rookie Blue to more interesting pieces like Mary Kills People and Family Law and Private Eyes, and we want those shows to have success on the channel. So, we produce those and commission those for that reason only.

1997 And again, when we look to our Food and Home and Flavour, that’s a different structure. So, we’re always trying to ebb and flow. We’ve also done some amazing programming on History. So, we’re always looking across our portfolio to make sure that it fits the channel and it fits our audience needs.

1998 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you.

1999 MR. REEB: The previous commentor, Ms. Berkowitz, had referenced a time when ‑‑ I think she quoted an industry executive as saying, you know, “There is no incentive to make the programming really good.” That’s certainly not the case where we are. You know, there may have been a time when Canadian television networks would commission a Canadian show and then bury it in a terrible timeslot. We take the opposite approach ‑‑ that, if we’re investing in Canadian programming, then it’s going to get priority of place on our networks, and in many cases, that’s how we built the brands, because we are a distinctly Canadian service.

2000 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that fulsome answer. You touched on a couple of the questions that I have. I have two more questions for you, and you touched on both of them. So, I’m just going to let us put some more meat on the bones of those.

2001 You faced quite a challenging year last year. You lost two specialty channels. You, within months, built two new channels from the ground up. Congratulations on that. I’m wondering if you can share with us what learnings you have about pivoting, and I wonder if you could do that as quickly as you did that, within a matter of months, with Canadian content?

2002 MR. REEB: Well, I would say this, Commissioner. First off, thank you. I know our team ‑‑ it certainly is one of the biggest challenges I’ve seen in my career, and our team at Corus truly rose to the occasion. And I would say the Canadian content was the cornerstone of that strategy ‑‑ that we managed to rebuild.

2003 We launched two distinctly Canadian brands at a time when being distinctly Canadian is probably really important to our audiences. And we leaned into our Canadian content, which is produced under the auspices of Rachel’s team, to really not just go out with the product but the marketing, and to give assurance to our audiences that the continuity in terms of the flavour of those channels ‑‑ I use that word intentionally ‑‑ would continue and that they would feel at home. And I’ll stop now.

2004 So, you know, I think the learnings are that, I think for all Canadian broadcasters, that while Canadians ‑‑ let’s face it, Canadians love Hollywood content. People around the world love Hollywood content. When you make movies that cost 100, 200, 300 million dollars and have those kinds of stars and special effects, it’s designed to reach a global audience, and Canadians have an affinity for that.

2005 But they also have proven to have an affinity for brands that are homegrown. They have a much higher trust in news that is homegrown, and they want to see themselves reflected on the screen. Yes, they love a Marvel or a Disney movie, but they also want to see their stories, and that has to be how we as Canadian broadcasters continue to differentiate ourselves.

2006 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. The last topic I wanted to touch on is, of course, news. Every time you come before us, we discuss news, but we discuss it in the context of the hearing. And so, I want to give you a chance to tell us, what do you think is needed ‑‑ we’re asking several intervenors this because we’ve got you across from us. Let’s open up the discussion. What do you think is needed to save news in an evolving system that we’re looking at right now?

2007 MR. REEB: First off, some of the things lie outside of the CRTC’s ability to control, because some of the biggest threats to news don’t come from avenues that you have contemplated regulating or funding. The biggest threats to news, quite frankly, come from the undermining of trust in all institutions ‑‑ the institutions that sit across the river from us, the institutions of business, of law, and of media. And that undermining comes from foreign interference. It comes from very dangerous places that exist in social media.

2008 That is a much bigger cat that’s long out of a bag, that can’t be controlled probably at this point, but what can be controlled is ensuring that the antidote to misinformation, to foreign interference, to the tearing down of trust in our society, can be propped up. And journalism that follows an objective and fair code that is regulated but not overregulated ‑‑ and by ‘regulated’ I mean that in the case of news is self‑regulated, in many cases through the Broadcast Standards Council, through compliance with the RTDNA ‑‑ that that journalism, that kind of journalism, can get proper support.

2009 We are in a very unique position at Corus. Again, it sits outside the auspices of this hearing, but we continue, two years later, after the Shaw/Rogers merger, to be the only Canadian journalism organization at global news that does not receive any support from the regulated system. It is not the case for all of our large competitors; it is not the case for any of our small competitors.

2010 We stand alone, and in standing alone, we have had to make some very difficult decisions, and they have borne out for our employees and sometimes for our audiences. But in doing that, we have increased our flexibility, we have increased our willingness to try new things and to ensure that we can serve Canadian audiences in all places and on all platforms, and ensuring that there is a base level of support, not just from us as a company, but from the system as a whole for news ‑‑ and then allowing news organizations to continue to innovate in the way that companies like ours have, in the way that many small journalism organizations like Village Media or Castanet have ‑‑ that that kind of encouragement needs to be continued to be driven by the market with an understanding that all Canadians, through the system that is regulated by the CRTC, can provide a baseline of support.

2011 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. Those are all my questions.

2012 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much. Let’s go to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

2013 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. I think we’re running out of time, so I’ll try to ask pointed questions.

2014 So, we’ve spoken at length about news ‑‑ costly to produce. I’d like to talk about another type of programming at risk ‑‑ kids’ programming. We had a lot of intervenors reminding us that, if there is one genre that contributes to creating demand for Canadian content in the long run, it’s kids’ programming. Kids’ programming is also something that is actually quite exportable. There is a market opportunity and market potential for kids’ programming.

2015 So, I would be interested to know your views around how the system can ensure that there is continued support for kids’ programming, in the context of eliminating PNI, for instance. Should we expect that only the public in charge of kids’ programming, the foreign online streamers in charge of online kids’ programming? And in the second case, how do we ensure that what is being produced is actually, to use your words, culturally relevant to Canadians?

2016 MR. REEB: Thank you for the question, Commissioner. And I will start by acknowledging if we can’t answer this question, I’m not sure who can. We continue to be the largest linear broadcaster of children’s programming, with a multitude of channels.

2017 But I am going to start by taking us back to a comment that my colleague made earlier ‑‑ is that, if we only talk about the supply side, and not the demand side, then we’re missing a very important part of the equation. There is no doubt, as we just saw with the announcement by DHX and Bell that their children’s channels would be removed from the distribution system of Bell, that kids’ channels are under heavy pressure from distributors for removal.

2018 And I would suggest that if the Commission wants to truly address the demand side, that it should reconsider a proposal that this company, Corus, made many years ago, and that is to ensure mandatory distribution of children’s channels in the cable ecosystem, and potentially in the virtual BDU ecosystem as well, because as with school taxes which not every citizen takes advantage of at every point in their life but they sure do when they have kids, not everyone wants to pay for the distribution of children’s services, but they are very important to the cultural fabric and to the entertainment of kids, going forward.

2019 And on the broader policy question, I would invite any of my colleagues to weigh in.

2020 MR. THOMPSON: I would maybe highlight one point that Troy already made, just for emphasis. You know, mandatory distribution of children’s ‑‑ that’s not a core position that we’ve taken in this proceeding or in the market dynamics proceeding. It’s more down the line of the hypothetical, Madam Vice Chair, if it were top of mind for the Commission, if it were a priority for the Commission coming out of these hearings.

2021 As Troy said, you absolutely have to be conscious of the distribution environment. You can’t just focus on the supply side as it relates to kids’ programming. Forcing broadcasters who have limited distribution opportunities to make programming that may not be distributed is not a tenable proposition.

2022 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Yes, thank you, and it is one of those many themes that cuts across several of our hearings, and the issue of mandatory or non‑mandatory distribution will probably be addressed in the MDS hearing, but in this particular hearing, I am interested in how you support the actual development of content for kids, how do you make sure that it’s discoverable, and who is responsible for it at the end of the day?

2023 MR. REEB: Well, we’ve been responsible for a lot of kids’ programming for a lot of years, and it was referenced by another party earlier this week. The business case for children’s programming has become exceedingly difficult over the last number of years. Not only are the distributors pressuring, you know, the children’s channels, but increasingly restrictive rules on what advertising can be put on those channels have led to tremendous difficulty around monetization in the commercial environment.

2024 You did have a presenter earlier this week suggest that, you know, if you could just make a hit, just force them to make a hit, that somehow we could reap the rewards of that. But I can tell you this. We can have a massive hit on Treehouse or YTV, and the economics don’t change. They don’t change at all, because there is no advertising, and the subscription volumes don’t change for the channel.

2025 So, it may be a hit in terms of the number of parents who sit with their children to watch it, but in terms of the actual dollars that it can produce to encourage future production, there is zero change at all. So, it has become a very challenged environment overall for our kids channels.

2026 MR. THOMPSON: And maybe one just final point on this, and you referenced it in your question, Madam Vice Chair. To the extent that it’s not economical for the private system to produce that content, these are areas where we really would suggest leaning more heavily on the public broadcaster and on the funding regime. That is what they are there for. It’s to compensate for what are effectively market failures.

2027 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you for this.

2028 One last question, very quickly. You have mentioned, I think in one of your responses earlier today, that your lifestyle programs were culturally relevant. What does that mean, ‘culturally relevant? Because one of the issues that we have to look at is whether we should introduce a cultural test, and you probably heard the conversation this morning with the NFB on what this could entail and some of the difficulties around defining what is culturally relevant.

2029 So, I am struggling with a lifestyle program being culturally relevant. What can be so Canadian about a food show? I am being coy, but I’d like to better understand your own understanding of what being culturally relevant to Canadians looks like, concretely?

2030 MS. NELSON: Well, there has certainly always been a tension between scripted and documentary being culturally relevant, even though some of the shows I referenced ‑‑ I don’t know if I could argue that they are; they’re great entertainment, in some of the scripted pieces that we’ve done.

2031 You know, ‘culturally relevant’ can mean so many different things. Are they very popular amongst our audiences? Yes. Do people respond to the Canadian talent that drives those channels, to the things that they are doing within those shows? They may not be scripted programming and storytelling, but they are just as useful and interesting to our Canadian audiences as anything else.

2032 When we do our food shows, there are pieces of culturally relevant information that we give, even in a food competition show, through some of our casting with equity‑seeking groups, through just history of food.

2033 So, we might not be able to put it in the same box as documentary and scripted, but it certainly engages Canadian audiences, and I would argue that that becomes maybe a different kind of cultural relevancy, but it’s still quite key to the ecosystem.

2034 MR. REEB: And I would say that, you know, if you look at a number of our food shows, since you brought it up, which feature Canadian celebrity chefs, whether, you know, Ricardo in Montreal, Mark McEwan in Toronto ‑‑ I can name them, going across the country ‑‑ have incented demand and interest in Canadian cuisine and cooking in a way that a PNI show that pretends to be set in Chicago never can.

2035 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: I was just trying to find an excuse to plug in potato salad ‑‑

‑‑‑ Rires

2036 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ and I was unsuccessful. Thank you for your answers.

2037 MR. REEB: Thank you.

2038 THE CHAIRPERSON: Wonderful. Thank you. So, we have covered a lot this morning. Perhaps we could turn things back over to you. If there’s something that we did not have an opportunity to cover, or you would like to leave us with a key thought or a key message, we’ll turn things back over to you.

2039 MR. REEB: Well, thank you. First off, I want to thank the entire Panel for the very insightful questions. We didn’t expect to not leave here feeling a little bit challenged, and we hope that some of the proposals we’ve put forward recognize not only what we think is a commonsense approach, but the perspective of a company that is proud to do Canadian content, that wants to do Canadian content, and that believes that those who play in this system have an obligation to contribute into the system.

2040 You know, every night in this country, Global National, on average, reaches more Canadian viewers than any other show on English conventional television. It is the national news. It is culturally relevant. It is relevant to our democracy. It is important to what happens in this country, and Canadians respond to it in a major way.

2041 As I said earlier, the biggest stars for us in many cases are our lifestyle stars. We have created ‑‑ there’s always lots of conversation about why can’t English Canada have a star system in the same way that French Canada does? We believe in the lifestyle space, that we do, and we have created stars that exist not just in Canada but around the world. These genres are no less deserving or meaningful of support than any other genre in the system.

2042 And I will reinforce something I said before ‑‑ that we are at a time when our cultural sovereignty and our very sovereignty is under attack from south of the border, and it has never been more important than it is now to have a system that supports Canadians being able to tell their own stories and ensure that those stories receive pride of place, on not just Canadian companies but on companies that travel the world.

2043 So, thank you very, very much for the opportunity to share our thoughts with you, and we look forward to any follow‑ups.

2044 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to Corus for being here with us today.

2045 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. Nous allons maintenant nous connecter via zoom pour les prochains participants, l’Adisq. Bonjour, est‑ce que vous m’entendez bien?

2046 M^me PARÉ: Oui, tout à fait.

2047 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Parfait. Donc vous pouvez vous présenter et vous pouvez débuter. Merci.

Présentation

2048 M^me PARÉ : Madame la Présidente, Monsieur et Mesdames les conseillers, membres du personnel, merci de nous permettre de nous exprimer aujourd’hui sur ce dossier aussi important pour notre industrie et nos musiques.

2049 Je suis Eve Paré, directrice générale de l’Adisq et je suis accompagnée de mon collègue Simon Claus, directeur des affaires publiques.

2050 Fondée en 1978, l’Adisq est un joueur clé de l’industrie de la musique et du spectacle au Québec. L’association, qui représente plus de 200 entreprises, a pour mission de les outiller, les accompagner et de veiller à ce que le cadre dans lequel elles évoluent favorise leur essor pour que les musiques et les spectacles d’ici rayonnent sur notre territoire et au‑delà de nos frontières.

2051 L’audience d’aujourd’hui s’inscrit dans un processus de modernisation du cadre de radiodiffusion essentiel au plein épanouissement de nos industries culturelles. Celui‑ci vise une consolidation du système de radiodiffusion canadien qui reflète et valorise notre diversité culturelle et notre identité collective.

2052 Il est important que sa portée et son ambition soient à la hauteur des enjeux qui traversent notre système de radiodiffusion.

2053 Dans son intervention, l’Adisq porte trois principales demandes :

2054 ‑ Le maintien du système actuel d’émissions d’intérêt national, dites EIN;

2055 ‑ le maintien de la définition actuelle de compositeur de la musique, qui représente un poste créatif clé dans une production qualifiée canadienne; et

2056 ‑ la mise sur place d’un mécanisme favorisant l’intégration de pièces musicales canadiennes pour l’utilisation de musique préexistante dans une production audiovisuelle.

2057 Commençons par les outils réglementaires axés sur les dépenses et en particulier les dépenses en EIN. Bien qu’elles soient essentielles pour véhiculer nos histoires, ce sont des émissions coûteuses à produire avec des retours sur investissement incertains. Sans les exigences réglementaires de dépenses en émissions canadiennes, plusieurs œuvres dramatiques, documentaires, de variétés ou musicales n’auraient jamais vu le jour.

2058 Ce mécanisme assure donc un soutien structurant la création et à la diffusion de contenus culturels canadiens diversifiés de qualité. Adaptable aux réalités des différents marchés linguistiques et à la nature des entreprises réglementées, il constitue en outre un outil souple et moderne capable d’évoluer avec le système.

2059 Dans un contexte où la diversité des récits et des voix canadiennes doit être protégée et amplifiée, l’Adisq considère que cet outil réglementaire conserve toute sa pertinence. Nous souhaitons porter une attention particulière aux émissions musicales, des émissions rassembleuses enracinées dans notre patrimoine audiovisuel. Pensons par exemple à Belle et Bum, Star Académie ou La Fureur, qui constituent des productions phares où la musique est célébrée et devant lesquelles peuvent se rassembler des auditoires importants. Des émissions plus récentes telles que Zenith, Bonsoir bonsoir, Plaza Plaisir ou La Voix illustrent comment ce genre est capable de se renouveler tout en continuant de valoriser nos musiques.

2060 Pour notre industrie, la télévision reste un média privilégié pour faire connaître nos musiques en raison de sa grande portée. Elle a permis à des générations d’artistes d’ici de rencontrer leur public et de se faire connaître largement auprès d’un auditoire diversifié. Un passage à la télévision peut aujourd’hui encore faire une grande différence dans la carrière d’un artiste.

2061 Les plateformes en ligne constituent également des lieux intéressants pour la diffusion d’émissions musicales. On a ainsi vu se déployer des formats musicaux innovants, comme Tiny Desk, Jam in the Van ou COLORS. Ce sont des vitrines puissantes mettant l’accent sur des prestations musicales. Toutefois, bien peu de ces formats sont des initiatives canadiennes, renforçant ainsi l’importance de préserver les émissions d’intérêt national pour valoriser nos musiques dans les productions d’ici.

2062 Pour l’Adisq, la présence de musique à la télévision, qu’elle soit linéaire ou en ligne, via des émissions dédiées, demeure essentielle. La musique occupe un rôle important dans les productions audiovisuelles. Elle agit comme une signature narrative et un marqueur émotionnel leur conférant une couleur unique. Nos musiques peuvent agir comme un marqueur identitaire qui permet au public de reconnaître le caractère particulier d’une production audiovisuelle canadienne.

2063 C’est pourquoi nous proposons l’instauration du mécanisme suivant. Chaque élément du système canadien de radiodiffusion qui participe au financement des productions canadiennes devrait être tenu de s’assurer que 75 pour cent des dépenses de musique préexistantes soient dépensées pour des pièces musicales canadiennes. Cette proposition est plus flexible que celle présentée initialement. Elle vise un résultat global et non par production. Cette mesure représente un moyen facile à mettre en place pour augmenter la présence de nos musiques dans les productions canadiennes.

2064 Enfin, nous recommandons le maintien de la définition actuelle du poste clé de compositeur de la musique dans les critères définissant une émission canadienne. Celle‑ci assure concrètement l’embauche de talents canadiens pour la création de musique originale dans les productions. Elle garantit une participation active des compositeurs d’ici à la trame narrative des œuvres audiovisuelles tout en stimulant l’écosystème professionnel de la musique canadienne.

2065 Nos propositions visent à protéger, voire à renforcer les outils réglementaires qui ont démontré leur efficacité pour soutenir notre culture. Selon nous, ils offrent au Conseil toute la souplesse nécessaire pour moderniser le cadre de radiodiffusion. Il s’agit de garantir que le système audiovisuel canadien, soit en ligne ou traditionnel, demeure un puissant vecteur de diversité culturelle capable de faire rayonner nos artistes, notamment ceux issus du secteur musical.

2066 Je vous remercie pour votre attention et nous demeurons à votre disposition pour répondre à vos questions.

2067 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à l’Adisq pour votre participation dans cette audience. Alors on va commencer avec la vice‑présidente de la radiodiffusion, Madame Théberge. Merci.

2068 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci, Madame la Présidente. Bonjour, madame Paré. Bonjour, monsieur Claus. Ça me fait plaisir de vous avoir devant nous aujourd’hui.

2069 Quelques questions en commençant par ce que vous arguez s’agissant des émissions d’intérêt national. Dans votre soumission, vous dites — et vous en avez parlé un peu dans votre mot d’introduction, madame Paré —, mais vous dites que la production musicale audiovisuelle est en danger. Vous insistez sur le rôle rempart des émissions d’intérêt national. Pourriez‑vous nous donner un portrait un petit peu plus précis de qu’est‑ce que ça veut dire concrètement? Et qu’est‑ce qui arriverait si le Conseil décidait d’éliminer cette catégorie? Quoi d’autre? Qu’est‑ce qui pourrait être fait pour s’assurer de continuer à soutenir efficacement la production des contenus culturels canadiens? Et est‑ce que l’approche devrait être différente à votre avis selon les marchés linguistiques?

2070 M. CLAUS : Merci pour la question. Il y a plusieurs éléments dedans. Je vais essayer de les détailler. En premier lieu, comme madame Paré l’a rappelé en introduction, les émissions d’intérêt national protègent certains types d’émissions qui ont — et je pense que c’est reconnu par le CRTC — un certain coût à être produites. Et c’est pour ça qu’elles ont été mises en place.

2071 Nous, ce qu’on peut constater ces dernières années, c’est qu’il y a une forte inflation liée à la production d’émissions musicales. On le sait, nous‑mêmes, on en produit une. Donc, on voit comment les coûts ont pu augmenter liés au Gala de l’Adisq, mais, généralement, la pandémie et l’inflation qui ont suivi ont fait que les coûts de plateau sont beaucoup plus importants. La rémunération des artistes en performance a également augmenté. Tout ça fait que c’est des émissions que l’on considère plus à risque parce qu’elles sont encore plus coûteuses à produire aujourd’hui.

2072 Et donc c’est pour ça qu’on dit que, nous, on veut maintenir le statut d’émissions d’intérêt national en l’état ou, si le CRTC trouve qu’il faut repenser ces mécanismes, en tout cas, il faut que les émissions musicales bénéficient, on va dire, d’un cocon de protection pour que cet incitatif demeure.

2073 Quant au marché linguistique, je pense que l’une des forces des EIN… C’est pour ça qu’on trouve que les EIN sont un outil souple. Il prend en compte la nature des différents marchés linguistiques et la nature aussi des entreprises. Je ne me prononcerai pas pour le marché linguistique anglophone, mais, en tout cas, nous, sur le marché linguistique francophone, on tient à ce que ça demeure parce que, là encore, on l’a rappelé, c’est des émissions qui font partie de notre patrimoine musical et qui ont une importance culturelle et symbolique très forte au sein de notre marché.

2074 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Lorsque vous parlez d’un cocon de protection — et j’aime particulièrement l’expression — avez‑vous des idées plus précises de ce à quoi pourrait ressembler ledit cocon, si jamais le Conseil décidait de se départir donc de la catégorie d’émissions d’intérêt national?

2075 M. CLAUS : Pas particulièrement. Je pense que le CRTC a toute l’expertise pour voir comment il va penser l’évolution de sa réglementation. Mais, en tout cas, c’est sûr que l’idée de… Il faut des incitatifs forts. L’EIN est un incitatif fort en mettant en place quelque chose qui est obligatoire. Et je pense que l’obligation demeure une des meilleures protections.

2076 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Votre micro, madame Théberge, je crois, je ne sais pas pourquoi c’est moi,

2077 M. CLAUS : J’ai eu peur que ce soient mes écouteurs.

2078 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Excusez‑moi. Vous avez également fait référence dans votre mot d’introduction, madame Paré, aux services de diffusion continue en ligne qui peuvent créer des espaces qui sont propices à faire voyager la diffusion d’émissions musicales. Vous avez fait référence à Tiny Desk, entre autres.

2079 Dans quelle mesure est‑ce que vous pensez que ces services de diffusion accepteraient de se conformer à un cadre réglementaire qui les obligerait d’une certaine façon à financer des productions musicales canadiennes, notamment francophones?

2080 M. CLAUS : C’est tout l’enjeu du cadre réglementaire de la révision, je pense, du cadre réglementaire du CRTC de dire que… d’amener ces acteurs‑là à financer nos productions culturelles, en tout cas, destinées à la radiodiffusion puis, là, je parle très largement d’audio et d’audiovisuel concernant ces émissions spécifiques, justement, l’idée de mettre en place des obligations qui sont rattachées à des émissions de type musical et à amener des incitatifs pour produire de telles émissions qui pourraient se matérialiser par justement des performances d’artistes canadiens, qui reflètent une certaine dualité linguistique, des langues autochtones, mais qui ont toutes le talent, je pense, pour performer comme d’autres artistes sur ces types de formats.

2081 Et je pense que l’insertion de ce type d’obligation va amener justement ces joueurs étrangers qui ne connaissent pas forcément le potentiel qu’il y a sur notre marché à s’y intéresser de manière plus étroite. Et je pense qu’il y a tout le talent… le talent existe ici pour faire de magnifiques émissions comme COLORS, qui sont… où on voit par exemple… On en a moins vu au Québec, mais on a vu des artistes français, donc, de langue française, se produire dans des COLORS et ça a eu de grandes retombées.

2082 Et je pense que c’est très facilement reproductible ici. Et c’est tout à l’avantage de ces plateformes justement de diversifier leur programmation.

2083 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Peut‑être une question un peu plus précise liée à la définition en tant que telle. Rogers, dans sa soumission, affirme que l’octroi d’un point au compositeur de musique et au titulaire de droit sur la musique préexistante ou préenregistrée augmenterait la découvrabilité de la musique canadienne et, de ce fait, générerait des droits d’auteur pour les compositeurs et les musiciens canadiens. Je serais intéressée à vous entendre sur cette suggestion de la part de Rogers

2084 M. CLAUS : Nous, on a… C’est pour ça qu’on essaie de... On a essayé d’amener une autre proposition et peut‑être qu’on y reviendra après, j’imagine, mais il est… On pense qu’il faut maintenir la définition en l’état et garder le compositeur parce que l’idée de dire qu’on intègre de la musique d’un titulaire de droit canadien, on peut tout à fait penser à l’idée qu’un gestionnaire de droits canadiens acquiert du contenu étranger et se qualifie facilement comme... se qualifie pour le pointage en question.

2085 Donc nous, ça représentait un certain risque et on considère, en accord d’ailleurs avec plusieurs acteurs du milieu musical, notamment les représentants des auteurs et compositeurs et des éditeurs, qu’il faut maintenir le système en l’état.

2086 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci,

2087 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Alors, on va continuer avec la conseillère Paquette. Merci.

2088 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui, bonjour. Bonjour, madame Paré. Bonjour, monsieur Claus. Merci pour votre participation.

2089 Juste pour continuer sur la réponse que vous venez de fournir, monsieur Claus. Je comprends ce que vous dites concernant les détenteurs de droits canadiens. Mais, en fait, pour aller à une étape plus loin, en fait, je pense que, ce qu’on cherche à connaître, c’est votre opinion sur la musique préenregistrée comme telle. C’est‑à‑dire, si on changeait, là, parce que je comprends que c’était énoncé d’une certaine façon, mais, si on changeait pour dire : « détenteur de droits sur de la musique canadienne », est‑ce que l’accès…

2090 En fait, la question c’est : est‑ce que l’accès aux points de certification doit être uniquement réservé à la composition ou est‑ce qu’il y aurait lieu d’ouvrir de la musique… la porte à de la musique canadienne préenregistrée?

2091 M. CLAUS : C’est une question intéressante et c’est sûr que c’est une avenue qu’on n’a pas encore explorée, en toute honnêteté. Il faudrait qu’on considère quel impact ça a sur le milieu musical, ses effets et quelle influence.

2092 C’est sûr que, nous, on se positionne pour une… puis on peut revenir en détail, mais une utilisation maximale de musique canadienne dans les productions audiovisuelles. Donc, c’est une avenue qui peut être intéressante, mais qu’il faut qu’on… Il faut qu’on explore plus en détail les conséquences. Et puis on pourrait d’ailleurs vous revenir avec une réponse beaucoup plus formelle sur ça.

2093 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Donc, vous seriez prêt à nous revenir dans le cadre de cette instance pour nous fournir une réponse à la question?

2094 M. CLAUS : Tout à fait.

2095 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. À ce moment‑là, on reviendra un peu plus tard sur cet engagement.

2096 Concernant la proposition qu’au moins 75 pour cent du budget alloué à la musique préexistante d’une émission soit consacré à des pièces musicales canadiennes, c’est une proposition qu’on... c’est une suggestion qu’on retrouve dans plusieurs interventions des acteurs du milieu de la musique, là, je vois que vous avez assoupli votre position un peu par rapport à celle qu’il y a dans votre intervention.

2097 Pouvez‑vous nous dire pourquoi et est‑ce que ça veut dire que la position de façon générale change ou c’est l’Adisq qui revient un peu sur ce qu’elle proposait?

2098 M. CLAUS : On dirait qu’on devient le porte‑parole des différents membres du secteur musical. Au moins, je suis content que nos propositions soient cohérentes. C’est sûr que c’est une proposition nouvelle. Comme toute proposition nouvelle, elles sont sujettes à discussion. Nous, l’idée, c’est de proposer un mécanisme, on va dire, qui soit structurant pour favoriser l’intégration de musiques canadiennes dans les productions audiovisuelles.

2099 Donc, on part de cette prémisse. On a discuté en toute transparence sur des moyens de favoriser cela. Et l’idée est de dire : oui, ça reflète plusieurs positions. L’idée est de dire : on va peut‑être réfléchir à un mécanisme qui soit plus facile à mettre en place et qui soit plus flexible et plus souple dans ce cadre‑là.

2100 Mais, comme on le dit, c’est quelque chose que nous sommes en train de construire et nous sommes ouverts à des discussions et à des suggestions de la part du Conseil et en… c’est ça.

2101 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis juste pour que je comprenne, parce que la première proposition était plutôt claire, elle se mesurait facilement par production, de ce que je comprends, tandis qu’ici vous dites de manière plus générale… vous dites du budget alloué à la musique à des pièces musicales canadiennes. Comment ça se… Pouvez‑vous nous donner un peu plus de détails sur comment ça fonctionnerait?

2102 M. CLAUS : Bon, l’idée de…

2103 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Comment on mesurerait comme tel le 75 pour cent?

2104 M. CLAUS : Tout à fait. L’idée était justement de dire : on veut offrir plus de souplesse aux créateurs audiovisuels tout en étant quand même très attachés à ce principe en permettant des vases coulissants, cette idée de flexibilité.

2105 C’est sûr qu’on le sait quels sont les contenus musicaux utilisés dans des productions audiovisuelles, ne serait‑ce qu’à des fins de droits d’auteur. On est obligés. Il faut rémunérer les ayants droit pour cette utilisation. Il y a des rapports de contenus musicaux qui sont fournis à la SOCAN. Donc, il y a déjà quelque chose qui est compilé. Et il y a des solutions qui peuvent être imaginées.

2106 Dans certaines décisions, le Conseil exige que le titulaire de licence de radiodiffusion lui soumette un rapport annuel ou mensuel, mais, là, on dirait plus sur rapport annuel, lié à diverses questions qui sont soulevées dans la décision. Puis, là, en l’occurrence, ce serait de dire : bien, est‑ce que, dans le rapport annuel, par exemple, on peut faire une somme des dépenses et voir justement si ce seuil est atteint.

2107 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Je comprends. O.K. Très bien. Alors de mon côté, je n’ai pas d’autres questions. Je comprends qu’il reste… vous êtes prêt à prendre un engagement sur la question de la musique…

2108 M. CLAUS : Tout à fait. …

2109 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : …préenregistrée dans… devrait‑elle être considérée à l’intérieur de la définition de contenu canadien? Je vous demanderais de répondre à cet engagement d’ici le 4 juin prochain, qui est la date limite pour répondre.

2110 M. CLAUS : Et non d’ici 4 jours, tout à fait.

2111 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Exact. Merci, Madame la Présidente.

2112 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. On a une autre question de notre vice‑présidente, merci.

2113 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci, Madame la Présidente. Oui, la question des données. Comme vous le savez, une des choses que l’on examine dans le cadre de cette audience, c’est les obligations de rapport qui devraient donc être confiées à ceux et celles qui contribuent au système de radiodiffusion. J’aurais aimé vous entendre sur cette question, notamment, dans quelle mesure la question des données est importante pour vous, ce que ça vous amènerait dans le développement de votre industrie, le rôle que ça joue, notamment en termes de découvrabilité et le type de données qui serait particulièrement important pour vous. Merci.

2114 M. CLAUS : Là, on reste encore dans le cadre de l’audiovisuel ou on est en train d’aller voir plus largement? Mais...

2115 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : On est encore dans le domaine de l’audiovisuel. Évidemment, comme vous savez, nous avons une audience…

2116 M. CLAUS : Oui.

2117 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …qui traite de la politique audio qui aura lieu un peu plus tard cette année.

2118 M. CLAUS : Tout à fait.

2119 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Alors, je vous demande de rester le plus possible dans le contexte de cette audience.

2120 M. CLAUS : On va en effet être amenés à se revoir. Puis je pense qu’il y a des éléments où on va pouvoir aller beaucoup plus en détail et beaucoup plus en profondeur sur le type de données que nous souhaitons. Mais c’est sûr que toutes — comment dire? — toutes données que l’on peut avoir justement sur l’intégration de musique dans les productions audiovisuelles sont intéressantes pour nous.

2121 C’est sûr que, aujourd’hui, une des principales… un des principaux lieux d’écoute de la musique, c’est une plateforme de nature audiovisuelle. On va parler de YouTube. Puis on a très peu de données quant à la place de nos musiques, quant aux types d’écoutes qui sont sur ces plateformes‑là, que ce soient des écoutes qui soient liées à des comptes individuels, que ce soit lié à des écoutes de comptes professionnels.

2122 Donc, tout ceci est utile pour réfléchir à l’évolution des modèles, à la montée d’un tel service comme l’écoute de musique en ligne et à la place que nos musiques y occupent puis tout en favorisant l’intelligence de marché de nos membres, je dirais ça comme, rapidement.

2123 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Excellent. Merci beaucoup. Merci pour vos réponses. Merci pour la discussion. Alors, on aimerait vous laisser le dernier mot. Merci.

2124 M^me PARÉ : Merci, Madame la Présidente.

2125 Le secteur audiovisuel et celui de la musique partagent un objectif commun, celui de raconter des histoires qui touchent le public, des histoires qui nous rassemblent et qui nous ressemblent.

2126 Nos musiques peuvent agir comme un marqueur identitaire qui permet au public de reconnaître le caractère particulier d’une production audiovisuelle canadienne. Elle contribue à créer des productions audiovisuelles de qualité, affirmant leur caractère distinct.

2127 Je vous remercie aujourd’hui de l’opportunité de nous exprimer.

2128 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Un gros merci à l’Adisq et bonne fin de semaine.

2129 M. CLAUS : Merci

2130 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci beaucoup.

2131 We will now hear the presentation of the Canadian Communication Systems Alliance. We will connect through Zoom to the participants. You may begin when you are ready. Please introduce yourself.

Présentation

2132 MS. SOMERVILLE: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner staff, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Sheri Somerville, CEO of the Canadian Communication Systems Alliance, and here with me today is our director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs, John Roman. We are also joined by our member company colleagues from Access Communications CFO Sandy Bain and Senior Manager Community Engagement Tracey Mucha.

2133 CCSA is a national organization representing more than 100 small independent broadcasting distribution companies and ISPs who provide TV, Internet, and telecommunications services to nearly half a million Canadian residents and businesses in urban and rural communities. To day we would ask you to consider two primary points: first, that local and community content is Canadian content; and second, we must develop a Canadian programming sector that inspires Canadian identity and creativity.

2134 CCSA believes the Commission is looking for a solution to an unspoken objective: How do we build Canadian identity through Canadian programming? And while CCSA’s members are not in a position to create national content, they do have the capacity to create compelling local and community content.

2135 Many of our members create local and community programming, but we have received reports from our members that they are operating at a loss year over year. In some cases, the loss is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, while they collectively look to ensure smaller communities in their service areas have some elements of local coverage. In other instances, members tell us that community coverage has declined steadily over the years due to falling revenues, which have resulted in budgetary cuts and staffing issues.

2136 CCSA members want to meet regulatory objectives, but it is becoming financially unsustainable. We would ask the Commission to consider how important is it to continue to have local and community content be made by local independent broadcasters. Because if it is essential, then we would ask the Commission to support it accordingly. Alternatively, if it isn’t essential, then we would ask the Commission to clarify criteria in its decision as to what makes communities not important enough to be reflected in community content.

2137 CCSA believes that by any definition or criteria proposed, local and community programming is Canadian programming. However, it is not receiving the funding that it needs. The current policy direction recognizes the benefits of have “more sustainable independent broadcasting and programming undertakings, including those run by communities and non‑profits.”

2138 We are asking the Commission today to recognize that local community programming is essential and a critical part of Canadian broadcasting that requires a sustainable funding model.

2139 I will let our member Tracey explain the roles a little further.

2140 MS. MUCHA: Thank you, Sheri.

2141 For nearly 50 years, Access Communications has connected people by delivering exceptional communications and entertainment services, creating opportunities for local expression as a 100 per cent community‑owned, not‑for‑profit co‑operative. Our mission is to ensure that local voices, stories, and issues have a platform, voices that otherwise would not be heard from our over 200 urban and rural communities across Saskatchewan.

2142 We are here to emphasize the essential role of community programming in Canada’s broadcasting system. As streaming services gain subscribers, Canadian BDUs, large and small, are impacted. Unlike traditional BDUs, online streamers do not and will not deliver local services such as community channels or hyperlocal content. Our local content gives voices to narratives that no other media outlet offers. These programs are produced by and for the communities they represent, ensuring that local voices and unique perspectives are heard.

2143 The threat to high‑quality local community programming is real. The continuous decline in available funding has already resulted in fewer first‑run programming hours and the difficult decision to reduce or eliminate critical Canadian content. These losses can only be prevented through support from the Commission.

2144 If the Commission is to achieve its stated aim of supporting the creation and distribution of Canadian programming, then it must prioritize the creation and distribution of local and community content.

2145 We are privileged to witness the value of community channels every day. Community programming keeps residents and businesses informed. It fosters civic engagement, amplifies local voices, and supports countless causes that matter to Canadians. In a world where digital noise too often drowns out local relevance, our programming provides something essential: real connection, meaningful representation, and shared stories that reflect the heart of our communities. There is a clear and growing need for truly local content.

2146 We are asking the Commission to recognize that community programming is essential and a critical part of Canadian broadcasting that requires a sustainable funding model.

2147 Now I will hand this over to my colleague John to address our final point.

2148 MR. ROMAN: All intervenors at this hearing would prefer to see the Canadian broadcasting system become the envy of the world. CCSA’s members want to contribute and help make that vision a reality. Through local and community content, CCSA’s members, including Access Communications, can ensure that Canadians are reflected in their communities. We would ask the Commission as it works towards its new long‑term vision of the Canadian programming system to address the overwhelming financial burden of creating local and community programming, which is of exceptional importance to the achievement of the objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

2149 Today we would leave you with one ask: to recognize that community programming is essential and a critical part of the Canadian broadcasting system that requires a sustainable funding model.

2150 Thank you. We are prepared to answer your questions.

2151 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to the CCSA for taking the time to participate and for sharing your perspectives with us this morning.

2152 I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo to start the questioning for the Commission. Thank you.

2153 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. Thank you so much for being here today, and thanks for your presentation.

2154 In your submission, you propose adding a mentorship point to the system to support diversity and equity in senior production roles. How would including this point work towards making the definition of Canadian content simple, making it more forward‑looking and also long‑lasting? And could the mentorship credits that you raise in your submission be explored in other areas of the broadcasting system instead?

2155 MR. ROMAN: Thank you for your question, Commissioner. So it wasn’t designed necessarily to address the concerns you’ve raised, actually. It was designed to try and address another concern, which is that long‑term objectives of the Broadcasting Act need to work for all communities. And as a result, if we just try and focus on short‑term objectives, if we try and have people of certain backgrounds or certain groups only filling one necessary role, that doesn’t lead to long‑term growth and long‑term objectives that are outcomes that we all want to see.

2156 So as to whether or not this idea could necessarily be the best outcome or the best way of meeting the objective that we’re trying to set forward, there might be alternatives that might be better, and we would certainly be prepared if the Commission had a better solution.

2157 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you for that.

2158 The CCSA pushes for a flexible definition of the words “Canadian” and “cultural content to foster growth.” But as you’ve probably seen from some of the submissions and some of the intervenors that came before us already, some of them say that it’s hard to define what is Canadian because our country is just so inherently diverse and any attempt to do so would just be subjective. So I’m wondering how can the Commission, in your view, implement this so‑called flexible definition that you propose in a way that’s easy to apply while objectively incorporating cultural content without undermining diversity as well?

2159 MR. ROMAN: You do have a tendency for asking very complex questions, so thank you, Commissioner Naidoo.

2160 I’m actually going to take this slightly back to something that Corus said earlier today in their discussion, which was about cultural relevance. And largely, I suspect, that is the ultimate solution. It’s about cultural relevance as opposed to a strict definition of what is Canadian. Because there’s obviously the point system that has been provided for and can allow for some clarity, but there’s also going to be times where you could hit none of those points and still be significantly relevant to the Canadian cultural identity.

2161 As it currently stands, I believe we have no point system that applies to community content, but everything we do is culturally relevant. So from that standpoint, we would like a flexible model that is considerate of what the goals are that you ultimately want to achieve. And maybe that’s the point from which the Commission should be starting its focus.

2162 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. I saw some shaking of heads. Did somebody else want to jump in?

2163 MS. SOMERVILLE: No, no, I was just agreeing with John, because it really is hard to define, if you will. But to build something that is flexible and adaptable is key.

2164 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that addition.

2165 You argue that discoverability is not the core issue in all of this, but rather audience appetite for Canadian content. So how can a modernized framework, in your view, contribute to increasing this appetite for Canadian programs?

2166 MR. ROMAN: There are I think two questions within your question. So I’ll try and unpack them and then maybe to go Access afterward. But there’s the necessary element of national content, which is not what we’re largely here to talk about but is still relevant from what we initially had proposed. And if you look at the top 100 programs over the last month on TV, they are largely sports and, because there was an election last month, there was also a lot of news and Canadian coverage of the election. However, if you look at dramas and other such programming, I believe there’s a handful of programming that is done. I think Survivor Quebec is one of the handful. But largely, it’s mostly American content otherwise. So if we’re not meeting Canadians where they want to be, which is with their eyeballs on the TV screens, from a national perspective, we have a problem.

2167 From a local perspective ‑‑ and Access, afterwards, I would ask you to jump in on this ‑‑ it’s a very different situation because what we’re doing is not directly competing with national audiences or national content. It is very hyperlocalized and very attentive to the needs of the communities.

2168 Tracey, do you have anything on that?

2169 MS. MUCHA: Thank you, John. And thank you for the question and for the opportunity here to speak to this.

2170 We are very passionate about hyperlocal community content here in Saskatchewan. That is what we create. Seventy per cent of our content is community‑produced. And we air content, like John said, you know, local election coverage. We’ve got powwow coverage that we do with Indigenous content as well, and many, many talk shows within those local communities that we serve across Saskatchewan. So I do believe that local is definitely different than the national. And we are not competing with national in any way, shape, or form.

2171 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for the answers. Those are all my questions, but I know that my fellow Commissioners also have questions for you.

2172 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you so much. I will turn things over to the Vice‑Chair, Broadcasting.

2173 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Good morning. Nice to see to you all.

2174 So what metrics would your organization recommend to define the success of local and community programming? And are there any regional disparities you would like to highlight? Success can be measured differently, depending on where you are.

2175 MR. ROMAN: That is a tremendous question. Thank you, Vice‑Chair. That is one we might have to actually, with regards to different geographies, might have to go back and reflect on, and we’ll put that in our final submission.

2176 And I think you had another point as well. Can you ‑‑ I just want to make sure ‑‑

2177 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Well, what type of metrics should we be using to be able to assess, determine, evaluate the success of local and community programming?

2178 MR. ROMAN: Okay. So another intervenor who was also talking about community programming talked about how it should necessarily be only one community at a time for community content. And that is something that I think we disagree with, because community content and community programming necessarily can be for more than one community at a time. It’s, one, clear in the Act, section 3(1)(s), that that would be reflected. But also, if you’re covering the local sports team for your high school. Let’s say your son is playing hockey, and he’s going to the next community over to play and Access Communications or someone else is covering it. Well, if they’re covering it, they’re necessarily covering two sports teams, one for your local community and one for the other. So using metrics of just it being only one community at a time necessarily is too narrow a focus.

2179 We can try and endeavour to make a more holistic definition for you in our final submission, but we would want a metric, whatever it is ultimately, to be something that is reflective of communities that are necessarily linked, if it’s appropriate.

2180 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: It is a challenging one. I mean, the intervenor from Corus talked about something being culturally relevant, and you probably saw the exchange that we had along with the NFB. It’s a challenging one. So any thoughts in your final submissions about what this could look like would certainly be very useful to the Commission.

2181 MR. ROMAN: Tracey, do you have anything else on this, or ...?

2182 MS. MUCHA: No, John you covered that perfectly.

2183 MR. ROMAN: Okay. So I noticed, as you mentioned in cultural relevance, Commissioner, that you had mentioned it to Corus. There are other elements of cultural relevance that we’ll also bring up in our final submission.

2184 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Thank you very much. That’s all, Madam Chair.

2185 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Let’s go to Commissioner Paquette.

2186 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes. I would like to continue on this idea of producing local content. It’s very central in your intervention. And you say that you need to create more opportunities for the success of your members and the growth of your members. In what form would this content be made and available? Are we talking exclusively of community TV? Or are we more talking about online content? How do you see the production and the distribution of this content?

2187 MR. ROMAN: Sure. Thank you for the question, Commissioner. I will start and then, Tracy, I will throw it over to you for what Access is already doing.

2188 So we have a number of members who do community content that is both conventional television and online to make sure that all avenues can be reached. And to their mind, it’s not about the delivery mechanism; it’s about reaching their communities. Obviously, while somebody doing community content locally in B.C. might not be relevant for someone in Quebec, it’s still available online for them if they so choose. But obviously, its relevance is limited based on the nature of its objectives.

2189 That being said, it’s about making sure that the audiences and the communities are feeling reflected and heard for the content that they’re watching. So it might be distinct for the nature of the content in and of itself. If someone is watching a telethon for a charity in one community that has very little relevance in another, and bingo likewise. You’re likely not competing, Commissioner, in the bingo that’s happening in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. Maybe you are. I don’t want to speak for you.

2190 But, Tracey, perhaps you have more on what you’re doing directly.

2191 MS. MUCHA: Thank you, John, and thank you for the question.

2192 We are directly within Saskatchewan itself, and so we do deliver that linear content on 10 community channels across the province. We deliver them hyperlocally, regionally, and provincially. We definitely also have the option ‑‑ we have an app service as well that basically mimics exactly what we have on our linear television channels through an app and could be subscribed to those that are outside of our province that would like to enjoy that community content. So you have a grandmother who is in Nova Scotia who wants to listen to a musical performance that we’ve covered within that hyperlocal community, small‑town Saskatchewan. And that grandmother could tune in and watch that through our app service as well.

2193 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And maybe one last question. We hear a lot from some intervenors that local content is the hardest kind of content to produce, the most costful kind of content to produce, so the business case for local content is not very good. It’s very new to me that intervenors come and say this is a source of growth for us. Is it the solution, you think, for your members, the priority and the most ultimate solution? Or are there other things that could be done, like adapting to the changes in this multiplatform universe? Do you think producing local content is the best avenue to come back on track and create growth?

2194 MR. ROMAN: Thank you for your question. I think it’s a complex one because I don’t think it’s an either/or. What you’re proposing here is a matter of saying is it you should be focusing on local content as opportunity for growth, or should it be other national content, I think, if I’m understanding correctly. And I think you can differentiate the two. They’re not mutually isolated.

2195 So from a local perspective ‑‑ and Tracey, you can probably talk to more of this after ‑‑ but there’s certainly an appetite to do more community content. The issue is not the appetite; it’s the funding that’s the problem, fundamentally. However, if our members are doing community content, and they want to start doing broader content as well, that’s something that is currently outside the scope of our proposal, in broad terms, but it would necessarily have to be done in ways that were effective and relating back to the stories that they’re telling in their communities.

2196 But dealing specifically with what our members are doing for community content, the regulations clearly support the ambitions of doing community content. Community content is raised in section 3(1) ten times, not just in obviously section (s), but in other sections as well. The policy direction also talks about the importance of community programming and independence. So there’s certainly a need there for the Commission to prioritize it to some degree.

2197 We would suggest that if it is not done in any capacity, it will cease to be. And that’s obviously not the outcome anyone wants. So while we see an opportunity for growth, there also has to be an opportunity to at least continue it, and from there, growth can naturally happen.

2198 Tracey?

2199 MS. MUCHA: I would echo exactly what John is stating here to the Commission. It is super important to remember that people want local content. There is a demand of local content and programming right now. We have a wait list for the development of the content that we want to broadcast and produce and deliver out there to our members, but we just can’t do that with the capacity and resources to produce and deliver all of that to our customers. So to us, it’s really clear that there is a demand, and much more could be done when it comes to resources if we had those sustainable funding models that could contribute to community programming.

2200 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, I understand. Thank you very much. No more questions.

2201 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you to the CCSA for the discussion. Mr. Roman, we will undertake to get to the bottom of Commissioner Paquette’s community bingo habits over the lunch hour. We would like to turn things back over to you for any concluding remarks. Thank you.

2202 MS. SOMERVILLE: Yes, I will step in Madam, Chair. Thank you so much.

2203 CCSA and Access would like to thank you for the opportunity to be heard here by the Commission today and to discuss the role and importance of local community programming to Canadians that our members serve. Our members, like Access Communications, like we said, are truly hyperlocal and provide local and community content today that is frankly quite at risk if it’s not recognized as essential and supported financially to ensure its sustainability.

2204 It’s important to remember that, to our members, local and community content is Canadian content. And as Tracey had mentioned, there is a significant demand for it. People want to hear local stories that are relevant to their lives and their local communities. They also want to be informed by national stories, but local content is extremely relevant and extremely important. So if we leave you with one thing here today it’s simply, as we’ve said before, we’re asking the Commission to recognize that local and community programming is essential and it’s a critical part of the Canadian broadcasting that requires a sustainable funding model.

2205 Commissioners, you’re working on protecting Canadian identity, but you also represent regions, and in those regions, a multitude of local communities. And we would ask the Commission to support community content to ensure that a multitude of sections in the Broadcasting Act continue to be relevant.

2206 So thank you for the opportunity to be here today to share our thoughts and to have this conversation.

2207 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

2208 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now take a lunch break and be back at 1 p.m.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 12 h 16

‑‑‑ Reprise à 13 h 00

2209 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back, everyone.

2210 We will now hear the presentation of the Canadian Internet Society appearing via Zoom.

2211 We will just wait to see you on the screen. We now see you on the screen.

2212 Thank you for being here. Please introduce yourself and you may begin.

Présentation

2213 MR. ST‑AUBIN: Thank you.

2214 My name is Leonard St‑Aubin. I’m here on behalf of The Canadian Internet Society, or TCIS.

2215 Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioners. We appreciate the opportunity to appear in this proceeding.

2216 TCIS advocates for an open, affordable, accessible and secure Internet. Our mission is to ensure that all Canadians benefit from the opportunities created by digital transformation.

2217 In this proceeding we will address five points: focusing on the needs and interests of Canadians; redefining Canadian content; the potential for negative unintended consequences; certainty for user‑generated content; and increased reliance on market forces.

2218 First, policy and regulation should focus on the needs and interests of Canadians as consumers of audio‑visual content that we choose and pay for, as entrepreneurial creators of global content and as taxpayers who finance public funding for CanCon. In this rapidly evolving, open and competitive global market, it’s time to move beyond the needs of legacy broadcasters and independent producers.

2219 Second, redefining Canadian content requires flexibility. TCIS supports expansion of CanCon criteria and maximum flexibility within the proposed nine of 15 points, or further expansion and flexibility as proposed by Dr. Irene Berkowitz and other interveners. Nonetheless, in our view, the CanCon framework should give extra weight to productions that are based on a Canadian literary work, historical event or other similar cultural connection to Canada.

2220 As for intellectual property, currently the Commission does not require domestic ownership for CanCon certification. It should not do so going forward. To ensure non‑discriminatory outcomes, the CRTC should be able to certify commercially‑financed CanCon produced by foreign streaming services.

2221 Third, there is potential for negative, unintended consequences. Burdensome regulation can incentivize market exit and create barriers to entry, thereby reducing Canadians’ access to online content and freedom of choice. It can increase costs for Canadians as consumers. Regulation that fails to recognize market‑driven investment in CanCon can needlessly drive up the costs of public financing.

2222 The Commission should strive to do no harm. With that in mind, our fourth point is that regulation should provide certainty for user‑generated content, or UGC. The stated intent of public policy was to exclude UGC from regulation, yet section 4 of Bill C‑11 enables that regulation.

2223 If social media are subject to broadcasting regulation, then every online creator who earns revenues from UGC in Canada has reason to fear regulatory creep.

2224 UGC creators, or digital first creators, have never had to meet CanCon criteria. Requiring social media to identify and prioritize CanCon could adversely impact them in two ways. It could serve to promote only the regulated CanCon of established broadcasters on social media. Alternatively, UGC creators could find themselves forced to comply with CanCon criteria to avoid being deprioritized or undiscoverable.

2225 Certainty is essential. The Commission must clarify its intentions for potential regulation under section 4(2), and more generally, for defining or identifying Canadian programs on social media.

2226 Fifth, it’s time, in our view, for increased reliance on market forces. To our knowledge, no one has analyzed the market impact of requiring online media to support CanCon and compete directly with broadcasters for the rights to stream Canadian content in Canada, whether that is drama, comedy or sports, yet Canadian broadcasters want their CanCon obligations reduced and online creators are expressing concerns.

2227 TCIS believes that regulation must rely on market forces, be flexible, reduce regulatory burden and, where regulation is required, be efficient, effective and proportional to its purpose.

2228 For Canadian broadcasters, regulation should enable them to better compete. It should incentivize them to redirect their spending on foreign content toward Canadian programming, and it should recognize the importance of news and domestic sports.

2229 For foreign streamers and social media, TCIS believes that any further CPE requirement above the so‑called base contribution should not exceed five percent of Canadian revenues, and it should recognize and incentivize market‑based investments and partnerships with Canadian broadcasters and producers.

2230 I welcome your questions. Thank you.

2231 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for being with us today. We very much appreciate you participating in the proceeding and in the hearing to share your perspectives with us.

2232 I will turn things over to our Vice‑Chair of Telecom, Mr. Scott, to start with the questioning.

2233 Thank you.

2234 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much, Mr. St‑Aubin, for being here. It’s nice to see you again.

2235 Your submission makes the point that there’s a thriving group of Canadian digital first creators that are telling their stories and making great content. Is part of your thesis that digital first creators are increasingly carrying some of the load of championing in Canadian culture and that maybe it’s okay for us, as regulators, to do less, not just in terms of regulating the digital first folks, but across the entire broadcasting system?

2236 MR. ST‑AUBIN: Yes, I think that’s the case. When the Broadcasting Act was passed a long time ago now, before the recent amendments, digital online UGC content simply didn’t exist. I think it certainly is and has become part of the landscape to the extent that the act itself now defines online content as broadly as it does. To certainly include UGC in almost all audio and audio‑visual content online, I think it’s time that regulation took into account the fact that it is there and it is contributing in significant ways, I would say, to the objectives of the act in terms of producing, originating and making available Canadian content not only in Canada, but to the world.

2237 Many of these young ‑‑ and they are mostly young ‑‑ digital first providers, content creators, have revenues that come primarily from foreign audiences, from foreign viewing. They are among the most exported services or content on YouTube.

2238 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you for that.

2239 I’m trying to get it straight in my head. To what degree are we talking then about two parallel ecosystems, or are there ‑‑ what are the connection points? To rephrase, what are the decisions we might make on one side ‑‑ so a decision we make with regard to Netflix or a conventional broadcaster ‑‑ that might have carry‑on impacts that are felt on the digital creator side? Are they a separate thing? Are separate streams contributing in different ways? Where do they connect?

2240 MR. ST‑AUBIN: I’m not really sure I understand the question, but let me try.

2241 I would say that on streaming services like Netflix, Amazon, Disney and others the content is certainly of more of a professional nature and it is produced and acquired in quite different ways. When it comes to user‑generated content on social media, the originators, producers and creators are often individuals, they may be groups of individuals, they may be people who are in many countries collaborating at the same time, so the notion that you could apply the same Canadian content concepts or definitions in these two different worlds would be a bit of a stretch I would say.

2242 Does that come close to your question?

2243 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: It does.

2244 I think I will refine it a bit further just to say are there things you’re worried that we could do, rules that you’re worried we can impose on Netflix or traditional broadcasters that would be deleterious to digital?

2245 MR. ST‑AUBIN: I think the real concern is rules that might apply to social media. I think that’s where it gets complicated and difficult for UGC content.

2246 To my knowledge, most of the streamers, so Netflix, Disney and Amazon, et cetera, don’t carry UGC content. UGC content is either provided on the creator’s own networks or on ‑‑ websites rather ‑‑ or on social media, so it’s really in the area of social media where things get complicated for user‑generated content because any regulation that seeks to prioritize some Canadian content, then you need to go down the difficult path of identifying it on social media. Any regulation that serves to try and prioritize that ends up almost inevitably deprioritizing other user‑generated content, so you end up in this awkward situation ‑‑ if I’m a creator of comedy, either on my own social media website or on YouTube, for example, I have to be concerned that something that is done to promote CanCon in the traditional definition ends up a forced deprioritizing or making my content possibly undiscoverable. Is that ‑‑

2247 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: That’s very helpful and very clear. I think I’ll pivot away a bit from user‑generated content.

2248 Earlier this week, I’ve asked a couple of people now about what I’m calling the “potluck” problem where we have kind of a wide range of objectives that we’re made to achieve under the Broadcasting Act. There are lots of folks that are willing and able to contribute one way or another, but if everyone has maximum flexibility to contribute however they see fit we might end up with kind of everyone brings potato salad to the party.

2249 How do we make sure that we get all of our objectives met with kind of a minimum amount of prescriptiveness in terms of “You need to contribute exactly this amount of this type of thing?” How much flexibility can we let into the system and still ensure that we’re hitting all of our wide breadth of goals?

2250 MR. ST‑AUBIN: The objectives in the Broadcasting Act are so many and varied that I think it’s difficult to say that regulation is really in a position to try and achieve them all.

2251 What is really interesting I have found is that the interplay of market forces and digital technologies and the Internet have proven to be a remarkably successful means of generating such a wide variety of content that standing back and looking at the objectives of the act, I think it’s fair to say that those objectives are being achieved more today as a result of market forces and the Internet than perhaps they ever have been.

2252 I would say that I don’t think the Commission needs to get more specific in regulation; rather, by being more flexible, by allowing businesses to present the kind of content that they want ‑‑ I mean businesses, creators, broadcasters streamers, they all have developed their own niches. They all have their own particular content specialties, interests and audiences. I think that in itself speaks to diversity and the range of objectives in the act in a quite significant way.

2253 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

2254 You also spoke about flexibility within the points system. What do you think of the idea of some kind of sliding scale, where those who invest in projects with greater points receive greater credit, but that others who ‑‑ you know, half points equals half credit, more points equals more credit? Would that be meaningful or is that a degree of complexity that doesn’t necessarily deliver any potential benefit?

2255 MR. ST‑AUBIN: I guess it depends on the purpose of the scale. I would say that a scale makes a great deal of sense in a situation where you’re looking at public financing, for example, whether that’s from the CMF or the Canadian tax credit, which is more valuable than the regular production tax credit. I know that doesn’t involve the CRTC in particular, but I could see a sliding scale. To some degree, it already exists where the CMF ‑‑ not the tax credit, not CAVCO, but the CMF ‑‑ certainly requires a higher points scale for its public financing. Similarly, you could have a situation where there is a scale that applies. CAVCO could adopt a similar situation if they chose to.

2256 I think in terms of the Commission, the Commission is in a different situation, in my view, because as the regulator they are not providing public financing, so I think what maybe you’re suggesting is that, to the extent that Canadian content certified by the CRTC has a greater points scale, achieves higher points in the scheme, that would have some regulatory benefit associated to it.

2257 Is that what you have in mind?

2258 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: That’s essentially it. It’s almost like either a multiplier or a discount against your CPE with some types of content. For example, if you’re hitting a 10 out of 10, would you get ‑‑ you know, every dollar invested in a 10‑out‑of‑10 project gets you a dollar credit toward your CPE, but you would have the option of five out of 10 points, and then you would get 50 cents on an invested dollar against your CPE.

2259 MR. ST‑AUBIN: I kind of like the idea of a bonus point. I’m not sure that I like the idea of ‑‑ I think if it’s Canadian content it should be accepted as Canadian content. To be honest, I haven’t thought through the model that you’re suggesting, but just at face value my inclination would be to say if it’s Canadian content it meets the bar. If it achieves a particularly high level and the Commission believes that warrants some additional credit toward CPE that might be a useful solution.

2260 Again, it’s a little complex because there’s the interplay between the Commission’s certification of Canadian content, which in the future environment under Bill C‑11 I suspect will be greater than is currently the case, because so much certification now is based on the combination of CAVCO and CMF, but going forward, with all of these foreign entities involved in producing CanCon, I believe that’s going to have to ‑‑ the balance there will change, will shift.

2261 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks.

2262 The last question from me. If one of our goals is to promote the creation of stories that are for, about and told by Canadians, would it be weird to have those stories owned by large foreign companies?

2263 MR. ST‑AUBIN: You know, that situation already exists. It exists in two ways. First, it exists in the concept of international co‑productions, where international co‑productions involved the sharing of intellectual property rights, which I believe in that context corresponds to the investment, the financing share. I mean the whole scheme for certifying international co‑productions as Canadian is quite different from the scheme applied by the CRTC, CAVCO and the CMF. I believe Telefilm is the body that makes recommendations to CAVCO and the CMF to recommend whether an international co‑production meets the appropriate criteria.

2264 In that context, and as well in the CRTC’s context of ‑‑ I’m trying to remember what they’re called. The Commission has a category of co‑productions ‑‑ I’m sorry, they’re not called co‑productions, they’re ‑‑

2265 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Co‑ventures.

2266 MR. ST‑AUBIN: That’s the one, co‑venture. Yeah. I mean in there as well there is flexibility now for a level of foreign ownership of the intellectual property.

2267 We’ve also seen in other jurisdictions, in the U.K., in Denmark, in other European jurisdictions, and that was documented in the report, the De Rosa report that was done first for the CMF and then updated for the streamers’ organization, Canada is among the few countries in the world that require domestic ownership for certification of domestic content. I don’t think it’s problematic; I think what you need to ensure is that a production meets a level of all of the different criteria that you bring to bear. Domestic ownership could be one of them, but I do not believe that it needs to be mandatory.

2268 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much.

2269 Madam Chair, those are my questions.

2270 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

2271 We have a couple more questions from the panel. I will turn things over to the Vice‑Chair of Broadcasting.

2272 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Good morning. Good afternoon, I should say. I’m in the wrong time zone.

2273 You suggest that the Commission should strive to do no harm, which is always a good piece of advice for a regulator. In that context, what do you think the Commission should do to, on the one hand, limit regulatory burden on the foreign online platforms, but also ensuring that they contribute to the creation and presentation of audio‑visual content in a market they benefit from? Where is the sweet spot?

2274 MR. ST‑AUBIN: I think it’s fair for the CRTC to consider the kinds of contributions that are already being made. Independent of any regulation, what we have seen in, for example, the CMPA’s report, it shows that foreign sources, which at this point is almost certainly primarily foreign streamers, are actually contributing more, investing more in Canadian English‑language fiction than our Canadian public and private broadcasters combined. When you look at the CMPA report, you’ll see that’s true of some other content genres as well.

2275 When you look at the overall data in the latest CMPA profile, you’ll see that foreign investment in Canadian content, although as with all ‑‑ although all foreign investment in production in Canada has declined, foreign investment in Canadian content is still at 15 percent of the total of foreign investment. That is consistent across ‑‑ or about the average across the last 10 years shown in the data.

2276 The other factor that I think is important, and I do believe needs to be taken into account, is that foreign investment in so‑called location or service productions has provided huge support to the development and sustaining of a film and video production industry in Canada that is world class and certainly would not be able to be supported by the domestic industry alone.

2277 To my mind, all of those things contribute to ‑‑ ultimately to the production and exhibition of Canadian content and should be taken into account.

2278 So ‑‑ and all of those things contribute in a way that domestic broadcasters don’t.

2279 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: I’m not sure I see the connection between foreign investment in Canada as a location and foreign investment in content that is Canadian and culturally relevant to Canadians.

2280 Could you clarify that for me, please?

2281 MR. ST‑AUBIN: Well, I’ll try, yeah.

2282 If Disney is investing in a production based in Alberta or Toronto or Vancouver, they are spending an awful lot of money on local facilities and crews and sometimes post‑production. They will hire local actors. They will hire a variety of local creators of one kind or another.

2283 Even if the production itself does not meet Canadian content requirements, that activity in Canada is helping to sustain an industry at an extremely high level of global competitiveness that otherwise would not be able to exist.

2284 So it’s almost as though ‑‑ you might make a comparison as it’s helping to support the infrastructure that enables the cultural content at a level that otherwise would not be possible.

2285 Does that ‑‑

2286 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Yes, thank you.

2287 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

2288 We will go over to Commissioner Naidoo.

2289 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you.

2290 The Shaw Rocket Fund emphasized yesterday the Canadian financial ‑‑ that Canadian financial and creative control is essential in their view to ensure that Canadian values are reflected in content. And they say that producers can reinvest in future production.

2291 TCIS, however, does not believe that IP should be necessarily kept in the hands of Canadians. So how does your position align with the Broadcasting Act’s objectives to strengthen Canadian expression and support Canadian creators?

2292 MR. ST‑AUBIN: Well, what we have seen, we have seen foreign investment in Canada contribute to those objectives in a number of ways, as we’ve just discussed.

2293 To my mind, and ‑‑ yeah, to my mind I think the behaviour is capital ‑‑ of capital is more important than its source. And certainly that is the position that we’ve adopted when it comes to international coproductions and co‑ventures where we see productions that are very significantly Canadian and recognized as such, but nonetheless, with very significant investment from foreign actors.

2294 We’ve also seen situations where in productions like “Anne” and “Anne with an E” and “Alias Grace” and “Travellers” and “Between”, each of those productions was a situation where a foreign streamer agreed to take world rights up front, gave the Canadian broadcaster domestic rights for one or two years and there was ‑‑ in all of those circumstances, I mean, it was clear that foreign investment was quite huge. And once the period of foreign distribution was over, I mean, the Canadian company may have retained the rights, but I guess you’ve got to wonder what the value might be at that stage unless it’s a hugely popular show that’s going to be repeated over and over again.

2295 So ‑‑ and as we’ve seen in other jurisdictions, it’s not clear ‑‑ once you have international distribution and international streaming, once it ‑‑ it doesn’t appear to be the case that most jurisdictions are concerned about domestic ownership.

2296 Is that ‑‑

2297 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. Those are all my questions.

2298 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you for appearing before us today.

2299 We would like to turn things back over to you for any concluding remarks. Thank you.

2300 MR. ST‑AUBIN: I guess just as a final comment, I would say that the Act enables a level of regulation that is more intrusive than is required to achieve desired outcomes in a highly competitive marketplace where distribution is global and Canadians are benefiting from global distribution and so we support regulation that is proportional to its purpose.

2301 Thank you.

2302 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

2303 THE SECRETARY: Thank you very much.

2304 J’aimerais maintenant inviter Téléfilm Canada à s’approcher. Lorsque vous êtes prêts, s’il vous plaît vous présenter et présenter vos collègues et vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

2305 M^me ROY : O.K. Merci. Excusez‑moi. Bonjour, Madame la présidente, Madame la Vice‑Présidente, membres du Conseil et personnel du Conseil. Bon après‑midi.

2306 Oui, alors, ça nous fait très plaisir d’être avec vous cet après‑midi. Et, si vous permettez, je vais vous présenter les membres du panel qui m’accompagnent cet après‑midi.

2307 Alors, à ma droite, Francesca Accinelli, vice‑présidente stratégie des programmes et développement de l’industrie. Mathieu Perreault, directeur de la stratégie de développement et de business intelligence, intelligence d’affaires. Et, à ma gauche, Sébastien Pigeon, le vice‑président aux affaires légales et secrétaire corporatif.

2308 So we appear before you at a time when Canada is facing major challenges, instability and a severe threat with the proposed U.S. tariffs. This recent development introduced additional risk to our industry.

2309 In this context, Telefilm Canada is here to reaffirm its strong support to the audiovisual sector and contribute to protecting and future‑proofing Canadian content in the Canadian broadcasting system. With that in mind, Telefilm would like to focus on three main points today.

2310 First, the audiovisual industry plays a vital role in contributing to Canada’s national identity, with Canadian and Indigenous feature films and long‑form documentaries serving as essential pillars of the Canadian broadcasting system.

2311 Second, we wish to underscore the important role of the Commission’s rules on programs of national interest for the development, production and broadcast of Canadian feature films and long‑form documentaries.

2312 And third, for Canada to truly thrive in the global audiovisual landscape, Telefilm supports an approach where intellectual property is held by Canadians because ownership is not just economic power; it’s cultural sovereignty.

2313 Aujourd’hui, plus que jamais, nous avons besoin du cinéma pour nous élever, pour nous unir et pour nous inspirer.

2314 En tant que principal investisseur dans le cinéma canadien, Téléfilm a soutenu des films majeurs au cours de notre histoire pour notre pays. Pensons aux créateurs de talent derrière ces histoires : Sarah Polley, Denis Villeneuve, David Cronenberg, Zacharias Kunuk, Denys Arcand, Deepa Mehta et bien d’autres.

2315 Mais, aujourd’hui, il y a des défis et même une crise dans notre secteur. Les coûts de production ont augmenté. Les auditoires sont fractionnés entre les différents services. Et les manières pour les longs métrages d’accumuler des revenus et de rejoindre des auditoires ont été transformées, voire fragilisées.

2316 Notre industrie se doit d’être en constante évolution et Téléfilm reconnaît que le travail de modernisation est complexe. D’ailleurs, nous profitons de l’occasion pour féliciter le Conseil pour son travail d’actualisation du cadre de radiodiffusion.

2317 Maintenant, ma collègue Francesca abordera maintenant l’important travail de modernisation amorcé par Téléfilm.

2318 MS. ACCINELLI: For several years now, Telefilm has worked in collaboration with the industry on the modernization of the film ecosystem, allowing us to evolve our approach to investments through our programs and processes to elevate Canadian and Indigenous cinema.

2319 In 2024, Telefilm invested in 120 feature films in both official languages across Canada and, in our promotional programs, which focus on building awareness and engagement for Canadian Indigenous cinema, we financed 113 film festivals and supported 90 films and their theatrical releases domestically.

2320 As part of our three‑year strategic plan, Telefilm is redefining the criteria for evaluating the performance of our programs, strengthening our business intelligence capabilities, simplifying our processes and harmonizing with other funders. Our approach is data informed, with a dedicated business intelligence and research team working along with our creative and business experts.

2321 We want stable and prosperous companies creating great films that engage their audiences, young and old, in Canada and abroad.

2322 We observe that when we invest in audience development alongside production, we maximize the impact of our films, we strengthen our creative economy and we ensure that our storytelling continues to be a powerful expression in the global media landscape.

2323 The discoverability of feature films is critical to their success and their viability in a modern broadcasting system. We note that Canadians spend most time watching feature films in their homes. A 2023 Telefilm commissioned study showed that 98 percent of feature film consumption happens at home. That is happening through streaming services and broadcast TV. This is a transformational piece of data for the modernization work of the CRTC.

2324 So if we want Canadian films to remain a pillar of our Canadian identity, reach their audiences and thrive at home and abroad, they must have sufficient support at all levels and all stages throughout their life cycle. And this brings us to our second points about the important role that PNI will play in the Canadian broadcasting system.

2325 Feature films and long‑form documentaries help us to see ourselves on screen, share our perspectives with the world and preserve our history in a way that no other medium can. However, film productions are among the most vulnerable. They take time and resources. They represent creative risks. They require investment every step of the way. Without strong, sustained support, too many of our stories may never be told.

2326 Therefore, we’d like to reiterate the importance of measures such as PNI that support the creation, production and broadcasting of Canadian programs which includes feature films and long‑form documentaries.

2327 MS. ROY: Thank you, Fran.

2328 If the Commission’s final determination in this proceeding is to establish an expenditure requirement for broadcasting undertakings, both online and traditional, Telefilm urges the Commission to also consider including original feature films and long‑form documentaries as integral part of a revised framework. Possible options include maintaining PNI measures with support for drama, feature films and long‑form documentaries as part of this revised framework. Implementing and promoting a dedicated shelf space requirement for Canadian features and documentaries on online platforms and on other on‑demand services. Offering financial incentives for broadcasters and streamers when they invest in original Canadian feature films and long‑form documentaries.

2329 Additionally, the Commission could request broadcasters and streamers provide their proposals in Phase 3 of the CRTC’s modernization proceedings on how they will ensure the prominence and accessibility of Canadian audiovisual productions, including feature films.

2330 This leads us to our third and final point about intellectual property as one of the key factors to defining Canadian programming. I will also touch on artificial intelligence.

2331 Dans le présent contexte critique, la propriété intellectuelle demeure un élément clé du succès du secteur audiovisuel canadien. Un contrôle canadien de la PI :

2332 ‑ Contribue à notre souveraineté culturelle;

2333 ‑ permet à des Canadiens et à des compagnies de bénéficier des retombées économiques à long terme des projets soutenus; et

2334 ‑ aide à créer et à soutenir une industrie prospère et capable d’investir pour se développer et innover.

2335 La population canadienne semble d’ailleurs bien au fait de ces bénéfices. En effet, selon un récent sondage publié par la Canadian Media Producers Association, 90 pour cent de la population canadienne est d’avis que le contenu canadien devrait appartenir à des entreprises d’ici. Ce point de vue est d’ailleurs en adéquation avec la Loi sur Téléfilm Canada et, bien sûr, nos principes directeurs en matière de financement.

2336 Le producteur, le réalisateur et le scénariste jouent donc un rôle majeur dans la définition de la vision créative d’un film. Il est donc essentiel que ces postes clés soient occupés par des Canadiens et des Canadiennes afin de leur donner la possibilité d’exprimer leur créativité et leur talent et de le faire connaître à l’étranger.

2337 Bref, la propriété intellectuelle doit être détenue par des Canadiens.

2338 Enfin, j’aimerais attirer l’attention du Conseil sur la question d’ajout du rôle de showrunner à la liste des rôles créatifs clés. Ce poste est rare, voire inexistant, dans les équipes de films ou de documentaires. Cet ajout n’est donc pas pertinent dans le contexte des longs métrages.

2339 En ce qui concerne les questions du Conseil sur l’intelligence artificielle, Téléfilm ne documente pas actuellement de manière formelle l’utilisation de l’IA aux différents stades de la production. Toutefois, nous sommes conscients que des outils sont déjà utilisés dans les diverses étapes de création d’un film.

2340 Téléfilm suit activement l’évolution de cette technologie et proposera dans les prochains mois un cadre régissant l’utilisation de l’IA dans les productions financées par Téléfilm. Ce cadre garantira que l’humain demeure au centre de la création et que l’IA est utilisée de manière transparente et responsable, tout en permettant aux producteurs et créateurs d’innover et de demeurer compétitifs.

2341 Pour conclure, j’aimerais donc rappeler les trois principaux points suivants.

2342 Tout d’abord, les longs métrages et documentaires de longue durée jouent un rôle essentiel dans le système de radiodiffusion canadien.

2343 Deuxièmement, les longs métrages canadiens sont à risque. Ils sont difficiles à financer. Et, vu l’ensemble des choix disponibles, il y a une grande compétition. Ce qui fait que la découvrabilité des contenus canadiens est plus importante que jamais.

2344 Ce qui nous ramène d’ailleurs à notre souveraineté culturelle, que nous avons collectivement la responsabilité de protéger.

2345 Et c’est pourquoi un investissement prévisible est essentiel pour assurer la viabilité des longs métrages. Et les obligations relatives aux EIN ont d’ailleurs joué un rôle important pour les soutenir.

2346 Et, troisièmement, la propriété intellectuelle, qui doit appartenir à des Canadiens, Canadiennes. Assurer ce contrôle permettra au Canada de maintenir et de renforcer sa position au sein d’un environnement mondial où la concurrence est de plus en plus forte.

2347 Merci. Et nous sommes bien entendu prêts à répondre à vos questions.

2348 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à Téléfilm d’être venu ici aujourd’hui et pour vos soumissions et pour vos suggestions concrètes. Alors, merci beaucoup. Moi, je vais céder la parole à notre vice‑présidente. Merci.

2349 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci, Madame la Présidente. Merci, bienvenue. Merci pour la qualité de votre présentation qui me place dans une situation un petit peu difficile parce que, au fur et à mesure, j’éliminais les questions que j’avais sur ma liste. Alors... Mais c’est tout à votre honneur. Ça veut dire que vous avez été en mesure d’anticiper le genre de questionnements qui sont les nôtres. Alors…

2350 M^me ROY : Merci.

2351 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Je vais quand même me lancer en m’excusant d’emblée si je vous demande de répéter des choses que vous avez déjà dites, mais ça nous permettra de bien saisir l’essentiel de votre propos.

2352 Pourriez‑vous nous en dire plus sur les mesures qui, à votre avis, le Conseil devrait mettre en place pour améliorer l’exportabilité et la visibilité du contenu canadien, tant au Canada qu’à l’étranger? Dans votre présentation, au paragraphe 21, vous faites référence à ce qu’on appelle shelf space sur les plateformes. Sauf que ce n’est pas parce que quelque chose est dans un répertoire qu’on le trouve nécessairement facilement. Ça amène la notion de visibilité aussi.

2353 Alors, j’aurais aimé vous pousser un petit peu davantage pour comprendre un peu puis obtenir vos suggestions très concrètes sur comment est‑ce qu’on peut s’assurer que les plateformes non seulement donnent de l’espace au contenu canadien, mais s’assurent aussi de la visibilité de ce contenu canadien, qui est un élément essentiel pour la découvrabilité.

2354 M^me ROY : Oui, absolument. Puis la question des auditoires est centrale dans les préoccupations de Téléfilm et, donc, la question de découvrabilité qui en découle. Ce qui est certain... Et j’ai mon collègue Mathieu et mon collègue Sébastien qui vont pouvoir compléter des réponses. Il y a un attrait pour le long métrage. Il y a des statistiques qui démontrent très clairement — et on a voulu mettre l’accent sur cette réalité — que les films sont visionnés en salle, mais ils sont aussi visionnés en ligne majoritairement.

2355 Et, Mathieu, je vais t’inviter tout à l’heure à partager ces statistiques. Et, peut‑être, Sébastien, tu pourras enchaîner sur la mesure justement de bibliothèque, là, ou de shelf space à cet égard. Et, peut‑être, pour le volet international, Fran, tu pourras combiner parce qu’effectivement… D’ailleurs, c’est le Festival de Cannes actuellement. Il y a une magnifique sélection canadienne qui démontre encore une fois le potentiel et l’attrait de notre contenu sur la scène internationale.

2356 Donc peut être dans l’ordre Mathieu, débuter avec certaines données sur la consommation du long métrage.

2357 M. PERREAULT : Merci Julie. Donc oui, effectivement, comme on le mentionnait à notre discours d’ouverture, il y a une forte demande pour le long métrage canadien. Les études qu’on a commandées démontraient que 95 pour cent des Canadiens visionnent des longs métrages, que 98 pour cent des visionnements sont faits à la maison, soit à la télévision traditionnelle ou encore sur les plateformes.

2358 Au‑delà de la demande aussi, on constate que, l’offre de long métrage, elle est foisonnante sur les plateformes. Donc la DGC avait produit une étude précédemment qui démontrait qu’entre 60 pour cent et 90 pour cent des titres qui sont sur les bibliothèques des plateformes sont des longs métrages. Donc, c’est effectivement… Le long métrage est très présent sur les plateformes, donc très important en termes de contenu qui peut être visionné par les consommateurs.

2359 Par ailleurs, il y a d’autres études, comme l’OTM, par exemple, où est‑ce que c’est disponible soit sur les données ouvertes de CRTC ou directement sur la plateforme, où est‑ce qu’on constate que les visionnements en ligne sont très importants. La proportion de Canadiens qui visionnent des films en ligne, c’est passé de 48 à 63 pour cent en dedans de quelques années, notamment à cause de la pandémie. Donc, il y a vraiment un besoin à cet égard‑là.

2360 Donc je passerais la parole à Sébastien pour compléter.

2361 M. PIGEON : Merci. En fait, la mise en œuvre d’exigences relatives à un espace de diffusion qui pourraient imposer, par exemple, un pourcentage minimum de titres canadiens, dans notre vision, ça garantit quand même une visibilité et une découvrabilité du contenu.

2362 Il y a des exemples à l’international, notamment en France, où il y a des obligations à partir d’un certain seuil de revenus pour des diffuseurs en ligne d’offrir un certain pourcentage de contenu. Par exemple, le CRTC a aussi des exigences pour les services de vidéodiffusion de… bien, d’avoir, en fait, à leur disposition l’ensemble des longs métrages qui peuvent être disponibles dans une certaine période.

2363 Donc de rendre le contenu disponible, c’est la première étape pour qu’il soit bien découvrable et bien vu à l’international.

2364 M^me ROY : Quel beau lien, l’international.

2365 M^me ACCINELLI : Merci.

2366 So, for us, Téléfilm ‑‑ a lot of our programs work in collaboration with the current broadcasting system. We have companion programs that help to support Canadian and Indigenous feature films through mechanisms such as building audience engagement, right from development through to production, really focussed on, who are the audience, who are they trying to reach, so that, as they flow through our programs, we can make sure that we are giving them the proper type of support along the way.

2367 We also have our marketing program that not only finances theatrical distribution, but we’ve opened it up because we recognize the multi‑viewing platforms, which include television, video‑on‑demand, and all forms of digital distribution. We are definitely trying to address the significant at‑home consumption.

2368 And where I talk about why we create these complementary programs, we have launched something called ‘the audience engagement initiative’, and that works to reignite audience interest, create awareness around theatrical releases. In 2023, we had 60 events covering the French and English markets that were held in 32 cities across nine provinces, and just this last year, we had 85 events in 43 locations, with a number of different films from, you know, one coast to the other. I think Téléfilm’s role is complementary. We help to create interest and drive to shelf spaces along the way.

2369 And maybe I’ll end ‑‑ Téléfilm also has a tool called ‘see it all’ that is available on our website, and that is an aggregator that allows people to discover Canadian cinema and see where they can watch it in the multitude of places that Canadian cinema exists right now.

2370 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Thank you very much. Maybe a follow‑up question to Francesca about international, and international co‑pros in particular. So, a lot of the players who have been presenting before us spoke about the opportunity that co‑pros present. Of course, this led us to discussing IP, whether shared IP, is it a way to incentivize co‑pros and co‑financing for interesting projects, bringing more money to the table, thus enhancing perhaps the quality of some of the productions?

2371 So, I would be interested in knowing whether, in our current regulation, what are the key obstacles to that kind of model? What could be done by the CRTC to alleviate those obstacles? What could be done by the CRTC to allow for these models to emerge, to the benefit of course of the visibility and the production of Canadian content?

2372 MS. ACCINELLI: So, first of all, we have definitely seen a growth in international co‑productions. Just this past announcement in terms of our financing, we’ve supported eight international co‑productions. One, it’s because, if you want to reach big budgets, we need to expand past the Canadian market to be able to hit those 10, 12, 15 million dollar budgets.

2373 And as well, as you’ve noted, it increases the audience reach. So, for us, absolutely  ‑‑ finding ways to collaborate interprovincially as well as internationally is something that we in our programs are trying to encourage. And I think it’s centred around audience and development in terms of the marketplace.

2374 In terms of specifics around what you’re asking, I’m looking across, over to my colleague, Sébastien, who maybe has, you know ‑‑ or Julie ‑‑ in terms of additional information to add to the question.

2375 M^me ROY : Peut‑être pour ajouter, Téléfilm administre les coproductions pour Patrimoine Canada. On parle d’environ 60 traités de coproduction… En fait, 60 traités, donc, avec 60 pays. Donc, c’est un modèle de production qui est extrêmement important dans l’industrie du cinéma.

2376 J’allais quelque part avec ça. Mais, oui, alors, en fait, le point de départ, c’est que, pour favoriser la copro, ça prend du contenu. Et donc, c’est ce qu’on veut vous faire valoir aujourd’hui aussi, l’importance du long métrage et que, nous, on considère que le long métrage est à risque et vulnérable. Et donc, avant d’envisager la découvrabilité et les coproductions, il faut vraiment s’assurer qu’il y a une base solide et que le contenu de long métrage soit produit avec les moyens nécessaires pour le produire.

2377 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Je ne sais pas si tu as des choses…

2378 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : O.K. Vous me tendez une belle perche pour revenir à la question de la définition du contenu canadien, qui est au cœur de ce que nous sommes en train d’explorer. Puis, sur la question de la propriété intellectuelle, je ne scooperai pas une de mes collègues qui, je sais, aura des questions là‑dessus. Alors, je vais lui laisser la possibilité de vous interroger là‑dessus.

2379 Mais, sur la définition, ce matin, vos collègues de l’ONF ont parlé amplement de cette notion de test culturel. Puis ça fait partie d’un des éléments sur lesquels on voulait avoir des commentaires de la part des intervenants si, effectivement, on devait ajouter un élément culturel dans la définition du contenu canadien et, le cas échéant, à quoi il ressemblerait, sur quoi il serait basé, comment il pourrait être évalué, avec tous, évidemment, les défis de subjectivité que ça suppose.

2380 Alors, j’aurais aimé ça vous entendre un peu sur cette notion de test culturel. Il semblerait que d’autres marchés l’utilisent. Est‑ce que ça s’applique au Canada, qui a un profil démographique qui est quand même un peu différent que ce qu’on retrouve, par exemple, UK, France, et cætera. Alors, je serais curieuse de vous entendre sur ce concept.

2381 M^me ROY : Absolument. Bien, peut‑être, d’emblée, on pourrait dire que Téléfilm comprend que c’est une question qui est très complexe. Et Téléfilm soutient respectueusement que, pour garantir le plus grand éventail de perspectives et de points de vue et de voix, il est préférable que les éléments culturels soient exclus du cadre réglementaire du CRTC.

2382 Et notre approche à Téléfilm, c’est vraiment d’investir dans les perspectives de rôle clé que sont ceux des réalisateurs et des scénaristes. Et, pour nous, à partir du moment où ce regard, cette voie, cette perspective vient d’un réalisateur et d’un scénariste canadien, il y a donc une perspective canadienne et donc du contenu canadien.

2383 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Peut‑être une dernière question, encore une fois sur la question des définitions. Hier, nous avons eu une conversation très intéressante avec l’Observatoire du documentaire…

2384 M^me ROY : Oui.

2385 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …qui faisait valoir que la définition du contenu canadien telle qu’elle se décline à l’heure actuelle, parfois, ne s’arrime pas bien à certaines caractéristiques de certains types de documentaires. Ça place les producteurs et les réalisateurs de documentaires dans une situation où est ce qu’ils doivent faire des arbitrages douloureux de peur de ne pas se qualifier.

2386 Et de là l’idée peut‑être d’avoir une définition à géométrie variable, une définition qui se décline ou qui s’adapte mieux aux différents types de contenus. Je serais intéressée là aussi à avoir vos perspectives là‑dessus.

2387 M^me ROY : Actuellement, à téléfilm, les systèmes de points qui sont utilisés sont les mêmes du côté du documentaire. Ceci dit, on reconnaît que le genre documentaire a des besoins spécifiques particuliers de par la nature même du documentaire. Des tournages à l’étranger peuvent nécessiter des équipes étrangères, si je fais référence aux commentaires d’hier. Il est parfois plus difficile avec des sujets délicats de travailler avec des équipes locales. Donc, on comprend qu’il y a des différences. Donc, à cet égard‑là, on peut le reconnaître.

2388 Et, de notre côté, on est en conversation régulière, là, avec l’industrie pour adapter nos programmes et répondre aux besoins spécifiques. Mais c’est ce que je pourrais vous partager, là.

2389 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci beaucoup. Ça conclut mes questions. Merci.

2390 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Alors, on va continuer avec la conseillère Paquette.

2391 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Merci beaucoup. Bonjour.

2392 M^me ROY : Bonjour.

2393 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Concernant la question du droit d’auteur, en ce moment, les critères de Téléfilm exigent que le droit d’auteur soit détenu par des Canadiens, ce qui n’est pas le cas pour la définition du CRTC. Je me demandais, est‑ce que vous croyez que les définitions auraient intérêt à être uniformisées dans l’industrie? Ou est‑ce qu’un système multiniveaux où est‑ce qu’on a, par exemple, de la flexibilité à un certain niveau, mais plus de contraintes à un autre niveau serait préférable?

2394 M^me ROY :Bien, je vais passer la parole à Sébastien. Je dirais d’emblée que, de notre côté, bien entendu, on doit se conformer à la Loi sur Téléfilm Canada, qui prévoit donc ces notions. Mais Sébastien?

2395 M. PIGEON : Donc, il est certain que, pour Téléfilm, on est contraints par notre loi de ne financer que des projets qui sont canadiens. Donc, il serait impossible pour nous de faire cette modification‑là. Par contre, on ne souhaite pas vraiment se prononcer sur des structures de propriété que le CRTC pourrait imposer.

2396 Et on va continuer d’appuyer par contre, tout comme le BCPAC et le FMC, une approche coordonnée et efficace entre les partenaires financiers fédéraux.

2397 On soutient toutefois que la propriété canadienne est un élément très important de la certification des émissions canadiennes.

2398 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Puis il y a des intervenants qui ont suggéré et d’autres qui se sont montrés en faveur d’un système où est‑ce qu’il y aurait comme une équivalence ou une proportion entre la proportion de droits d’auteur détenus dans une œuvre et la proportion de dépenses en émissions canadiennes qui serait reconnue pour fins de certification.

2399 Je ne sais pas si vous comprenez l’exemple que je vous donne, là, mais, par exemple, si tu as 20 pour cent de propriétés… si une entreprise canadienne a 20 pour cent de propriété dans une œuvre, ça ferait que c’est 20 pour cent des dépenses qui pourraient être créditées comme dépenses en émissions canadiennes. Qu’est‑ce que vous pensez d’un modèle comme ça?

2400 M. PIGEON : Le problème, c’est que c’est que le contrôle de la propriété intellectuelle vient souvent avec le contrôle créatif. Alors, si on se retrouve dans une situation où on a 20 pour cent de contrôle sur la propriété intellectuelle par le producteur canadien, il est peu possible que ce producteur maintienne vraiment le contrôle sur le contenu et soit capable d’imposer une vision canadienne et de transmettre une vision canadienne. Ce serait une des craintes reliées à ce modèle‑là s’il était adopté.

2401 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Ça fait que vous associez directement le contrôle créatif au contrôle de la propriété intellectuelle? C’est direct, direct, d’après vous? Comme une entreprise étrangère ne pourrait pas retenir un auteur canadien, un réalisateur canadien?

2402 M. PIGEON : Il pourrait avoir le choix —

2403 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Même un producteur canadien?

2404 M. PIGEON : En fait, il pourrait avoir le choix, décider : moi, je veux tel acteur plutôt qu’un autre; je veux que l’histoire aille dans telle direction plutôt qu’une autre. Parce que, la propriété intellectuelle, essentiellement, à la fin, c’est ce qui permet de monétiser le contenu aussi et, donc, le partenaire qui a la majorité va être capable assez facilement d’aligner le contenu pour son marché principal. Et, malheureusement, le marché principal, ce n’est souvent pas le Canada.

2405 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Je comprends. On entend beaucoup dire qu’on doit modifier la définition pour faciliter l’exportabilité de nos contenus. Je me demandais si vous êtes d’accord avec cette affirmation ou est‑ce que les modèles qu’on a en ce moment de coentreprise, de coventures à l’international font ce qu’il faut pour permettre l’exportabilité de nos contenus?

2406 M^me ROY : On parle de quelle définition? Je m’excuse. Pour clarification, peut‑être.

2407 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bien, en fait, nos systèmes de coproduction, nos ententes de coproduction…

2408 M^me ROY : Oui.

2409 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : …qu’on a à l’international, on a par exemple, pour préciser, on a l’AQPM qui nous a dit en début de semaine : « La définition comme telle, ce n’est pas la définition qui va faire la différence parce qu’on a déjà tout un système en place qui favorise l’exportabilité des contenus. »

2410 Est‑ce que vous pensez qu’effectivement, un changement à la définition n’apportera pas grand‑chose dans cet objectif de permettre à nos productions d’être plus facilement exportables?

2411 M^me ROY : Um. Est‑ce qu’on a une opinion là‑dessus?

2412 MS. ACCINELLI: I would like to separate it between the two. In English Canada, there is quite a lot of co‑ventures that go on between Canada and the United States, and then there are recognized international treaty co‑productions. One can benefit you in Canada via our tax system, and the other one allows for Canadians to truly have authority and ownership over their IP, even if it’s split between another country, and make it exportable.

2413 I do think that our current structure and system, if we all work together in collaboration and finance feature films and documentaries at every step of the way, it is certain that we make exportable content, and I am sure you’re going to have other people making a list of all the projects. But if I use the reference of Blackberry, not a co‑production, but incredibly successful around the world. Shrouds is a coproduction with David Cronenberg.

2414 Again, it has had not just national, international success, but that money then comes back into the Canadian company’s hands and they are then allowed to go on and develop another IP. That’s why we always come back to IP, and writers and directors and Canadian producers as being for us the throughline in how we look at all of our investments, because we have seen throughout our years of investing in different projects that, when we do this well, our films are exportable and it really develops the creative economy.

2415 I don’t know if there’s ... Thank you.

2416 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Merci beaucoup. Une autre question. Dans votre mémoire, vous dites qu’il serait pertinent de discuter de découvrabilité dans le cadre de ce processus. On sait qu’on a une seconde audience qui s’en vient bientôt où est‑ce qu’il va en être amplement question. Pouvez‑vous nous donner une idée de ce que vous avez en tête et de ce que vous pensez qu’on devrait discuter à ce stade‑ci du processus?

2417 MS. ACCINELLI: I would like to talk about a few things that Téléfilm does right now in terms of discoverability. So, certainly, we have mechanisms through our financing programs, whether it’s promotion or marketing, that allow for effective support, nationally and internationally. But last year, we also encouraged our clients to complete and submit something called an ‘audience engagement and discoverability plan’ because we recognize when we are able to see the audiences they’re targeting from the beginning ‑‑ again, I go back to Madame Théberge ‑‑ it gives us a much better way to support these films throughout their lifetime.

2418 I also want to just again speak a bit about their audience engagement initiative ‑‑ I know I’m harping on it ‑‑ because for us, it becomes integral to if we are not finding these ways to create awareness domestically, how are we supposed to expect that international audiences are going to want to pay attention to our content? And I think that’s been an ongoing challenge for us as those who have been investing in great Canadian and Indigenous cinema.

2419 So, we would like to request that, if we can better support our Canadian content here at home, make sure that they are stable, make sure that they are supported in collaboration with the producers and the distributors and the broadcasters, they have the best platform to be able to travel internationally, we know that Canadian projects, whether they are drama, feature film, documentary, including children’s programming, do travel extremely well, based on all the recognition we have seen internationally.

2420 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Puis j’ai une dernière question. Concernant les rapports de données, dans votre intervention, vous parlez d’une approche très, très détaillée que vous avez en matière de collecte de données qui s’est avérée — et je cite :

« Inestimable pour combler les lacunes et assurer une représentation adéquate. »

2421 C’est très intéressant parce qu’il est question de rapport de données dans le cadre de cette instance, mais on reproche souvent au Conseil la surcharge administrative entraînée par les rapports et les comptes rendus qui sont exigés.

2422 Et je me demandais, est‑ce que, de votre côté, dans l’implantation de ce système que vous citez en exemple, vous avez rencontré également ce problème de fardeau administratif qu’on impose aux parties et est‑ce que vous avez fait quelque chose pour améliorer la situation?

2423 M^me ROY : Je vais débuter. Puis, Mathieu, peut‑être que tu pourras compléter. Donc ça fait… ça date d’il y a quelques années, l’implantation de collecte de formulaires, par exemple, d’autoidentification. Donc, c’est une forme de données que l’on collecte qui sont importantes pour voir les progrès effectués par Téléfilm Canada.

2424 Mais il y a d’autres données que l’on souhaite collecter, par exemple, sur les habitudes de consommation des auditoires. Et, à ce moment‑là, il faut envisager les partenariats. C’est‑à‑dire, on ne peut pas tout faire maison, on ne peut pas tout faire tout seul. C’est un moment où il faut se mettre ensemble et collaborer pour collecter des données.

2425 Oui, il y a une certaine lourdeur, mais je dirais que, entre le moment d’implantation où tout est nouveau et des habitudes et une erre d’aller, si je peux me permettre, là, qui se prend, c’est de moins en moins lourd, mais ça reste important et capital d’appuyer nos affirmations sur des données probantes et également de faire la revue de nos programmes en nous appuyant sur des données qui mesurent la performance également de nos programmes.

2426 Mais Mathieu, qui est notre économiste, pourra compléter ma réponse.

2427 M. PERREAULT : Merci, Julie. Oui, effectivement c’est un processus qui évolue constamment. On s’adapte un peu au feedback qu’on reçoit aussi de la part de la clientèle. La première année, on donnait un délai très court pour fournir des réponses, par exemple. Et on a constaté… on a allongé le délai par la suite pour laisser le temps, s’adapter à la réalité des répondants. On est passés à un système d’autoidentification également.

2428 Puis on constate dans nos données que le taux de réponse s’améliore à chaque année. On était à peu près à 80 pour cent la première année. Puis on est rendus autour de 85, 88 pour cent. Donc, il y a quand même généralement une réponse favorable au questionnaire. Mais c’est certain qu’on a toujours en tête de réduire au maximum le fardeau auprès des répondants.

2429 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Merci beaucoup. Je n’ai pas d’autres questions.

2430 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Alors, on va continuer avec la conseillère Naidoo.

2431 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thanks. Yesterday, you may have seen that the documentary network said that it’s seen a drop in overall funding for long‑form documentaries over the last decade in Canada. So, I’m wondering what your thoughts are on that. But also, is there anything that you think the CRTC could do to encourage collaborations between Canadian and non‑Canadian creators in the Canadian documentary genre?

2432 M^me ROY : On est à même de constater que, effectivement, le genre long métrage documentaire est à risque, est vulnérable. C’est la même chose d’ailleurs pour le long métrage en général. Les raisons pour lesquelles ces genres sont à risque, il y a moins de diffuseurs, il y a moins de distributeurs et les licences qui sont octroyées sont plus petites qu’auparavant. Et, parfois, les montages financiers sont difficiles à clore.

2433 Donc, on pense que, effectivement, puisque les genres incluant le documentaire longue forme sont à risque, on souhaite que la notion d’émissions d’intérêt national puisse à nouveau inclure ces deux genres qui sont extrêmement importants.

2434 Sébastien, est‑ce que tu as des choses que tu voudrais ajouter?

2435 M. PIGEON : En fait, le CRTC, comme vous le savez, règlemente déjà assez cette catégorie large de par l’inclusion dans la catégorie 7 dramatiques ou 2B pour les documentaires de longue durée. Donc, pour nous, il est important que les dépenses en émissions canadiennes soient maintenues et que les EIN soient maintenues afin d’encourager la production de ce genre qui est à risque.

2436 Plus généralement, on constate malheureusement que les radiodiffuseurs et les plateformes investissent de moins en moins souvent et préachètent moins souvent les droits de diffusion d’un long métrage, documentaire ou non, avant que la production ne commence.

2437 Les dépenses de programmation de longs métrages canadiens ont diminué de 7 pour cent, selon nos données, dans les quatre dernières années. Ce soutien financier est souvent essentiel à la structure financière des longs métrages ou aux distributeurs pour compenser les investissements qu’il doit réaliser à titre de minimum garanti ou en promotion et publicité.

2438 Cette source de revenus contribue donc à l’ensemble de la chaîne de valeur. Il est essentiel de s’assurer de maintenir des obligations et incitatifs adéquats auprès des diffuseurs et des plateformes pour ces genres difficiles à produire.

2439 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. That’s all I have. Thank you.

2440 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Excellent. Merci beaucoup. Alors, on va vous laisser le dernier mot. Merci.

2441 M^me ROY : Merci pour vos questions et votre intérêt. Peut‑être pour conclure, bon, vous voyez qu’on est assez passionnés par le long métrage, mais je me permettrais d’ajouter justement par rapport à la notion de long métrage et long métrage documentaire que, dans cette ère où il y a énormément de contenus qui sont diffusés sur tous les écrans, on a tendance à mettre tous les contenus dans une seule et même catégorie.

2442 Et je pense qu’un des éléments qu’on voudrait qui soit retenu ici, c’est le caractère distinctif du long métrage. Il est distinctif de par la nature même de son expression artistique. La relation au montage, la relation à l’histoire, elle est différente. Et aussi, le long métrage est différent dans sa façon d’être produit. Les coûts de production sont différents, sont plus élevés, les durées de production sont plus longues. Donc…

2443 Et, évidemment, il contribue à des objectifs que vous avez également, c’est‑à‑dire de contribuer à la souveraineté culturelle et à l’identité nationale. Donc, je pense qu’un des éléments que l’on souhaiterait qui soit retenu, c’est vraiment le caractère spécifique, unique et distinctif du long métrage.

2444 Et finalement — et je termine là‑dessus — nous croyons qu’il y a une opportunité d’actualiser et de moderniser les définitions du long métrage, puisque ce qui se retrouve actuellement réfère spécifiquement à des longs métrages qui sont diffusés à la télé. Alors qu’actuellement on sait très bien que le contenu est consommé sur divers écrans et pas uniquement en salle, mais sur différentes plateformes. Donc, nous voyons également une opportunité de venir actualiser et moderniser la définition.

2445 Merci beaucoup.

2446 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Téléfilm, on vous remercie. Merci.

2447 THE SECRETARY: Merci. We will take a short five‑minute break and be back at 2:20 with the next participant.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 14 h 12

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 21

2448 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentation of Andromedia. Please introduce yourself, and you may begin. Just one second, we cannot hear you in the room.

2449 MR. DEVER: Is that my doing?

2450 THE SECRETARY: That’s our doing. Now we hear you clearly.

2451 MR. DEVER: There we go. I don’t know if that’s a good thing.

Présentation

2452 MR. DEVER: Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, members of the Commission, my name is Bill Dever. I’m one of the owners of a Canadian distributor, Andromedia, based in Toronto. My company currently distributes around 1,500 hours of Canadian content globally. I also own a US‑based sales agency. When I’m not selling Canadian media, I’m publishing a weekly newsletter on issues facing the global business of motion picture exhibition which is distributed locally.

2453 I want to thank the CRTC for the opportunity to contribute. In appreciation, I will hopefully offer brevity.

2454 I want to apologize, to begin with, that a lot of the initials and abbreviations you use are foreign to me, so I beg your indulgence.

2455 My comments are motivated solely by a hoped‑for dialog. What follows is framed with that intent. The Canadian media industry stands at a critical juncture. For too long, however, a de facto embargo, erected by historical power imbalances and deeply entrenched industry practices, has hindered the true potential of Canadian programming. We must push for the interconnectivity of our theatres, our streamers, and our broadcasters as intertwined players in the media ecosystem.

2456 For decades, major US studios have operated under the assumption that the Canadian market was an extension of their own. While foundationally Hollywood has been imagined and defined by Canadians like Allan Dwan, Mack Sennett, Jack Warner, and Louis B. Mayer, Hollywood historically denied Canadian content equal access to both domestic and international audiences. Dominance by a few companies make it difficult for Canadian producers to secure distribution deals, reach audiences, and compete effectively against well‑funded Hollywood productions.

2457 Canada possesses unique assets that could be leveraged to overcome these obstacles and create a more equitable and dynamic media landscape. Chief among these is the National Film Board of Canada. The NFB represents a vast resource and a further deep tradition, holding the largest educational media library on the planet. By promoting and distributing Canadian‑produced product with NFB content in regions like Africa and Asia, a strong and consistent presence for Canadian media can be launched and established.

2458 As well, the NFB can become an AI incubator if we return to the foundation of the NFB, which was to build a Canadian cinematic voice for the world to hear. The NFB should become a repository of AI knowledge, AI incubation, and best practices. The NFB should be a key incubator for AI as it has been for computer animation and Imax as well as many other cutting‑edge media technologies.

2459 AI can be a tool for liberation or a tool for subjugation and control. We need to build a national foundation for this new media. There is no better place than through the auspices of the NFB. And in many ways, the NFB as of late has been a sleeping giant, and it is time to wake it up.

2460 Our financing structures are flawed. It has been abused and requires further oversight. We must give the market flexibility, but at the same time, we must strengthen and expand our point system.

2461 What we need now is a period of highly disciplined advancement and focused development, building upon the tradition of excellence and cultivating realistic market expectations. This requires a coordinated effort involving government, industry, and educational institutions to create a supportive ecosystem for Canadian media to flourish.

2462 Investing in Canadian media is needed to ensure a steady stream of high‑quality programming. This investment must be measured and also must provide a return for the Canadian taxpayers. We must build a proper ecosystem, one that pushes forwards Canadian movies at theatres, one that is skewed in favour of Canadian streamers and broadcasters.

2463 The global market is no longer looking at the US‑based product as the end‑all and be‑all. The world is opening to adding Canadian voices as attested to by the success of shows like North of North. Forty per cent of the most successful titles on Netflix are of international origin, often in languages other than English.

2464 The US studios over the past decade have attempted to seduce China and were played effectively. The world has noticed this, and the influence of US media is decreasing. The US studios’ foreign box office has shrunk from 90 per cent to a present level of 67 per cent. That number will keep going down.

2465 We must look at global trends, including the collapse of linear television. We should keep a keen eye on the plans and the strategies that the BBC are implementing in regard to streaming and into non‑linear presentation of their programming. We owe it to our nation to be self‑sufficient and to be disciplined. The large market for the second and third world is not theatres, nor is it television screens; it’s the mobile phone. NBC, a carrier in Africa and MENA, has by itself 280 million subscribers.

2466 We must understand the mediums of the 21st and 22nd century. As a result of the rapid growth in technology, creation tools are accessible to most. One thing we have to do as a national media force is to recognize the influence of social media and original creators.

2467 The state of confusion presently being posed by the US administration is creating opportunities for change and shifting Canadian media consumers’ priorities. We are in many ways in the shadow of a crumbling media monolith. It’s truly time to become masters of our own destiny.

2468 I would like to thank you for your time.

2469 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your submissions and for participating in this proceeding. I will turn things over to my colleague Commissioner Naidoo to start with the questions for the Commission. Thank you.

2470 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, Mr. Dever. Thank you so much for joining us today and for your presentation.

2471 MR. DEVER: It’s (DEV‑er)

2472 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: It’s Dever. Thank you very much.

2473 MR. DEVER: You’re welcome.

2474 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Nobody can pronounce my name, so we’re good company.

2475 MR. DEVER: You know what? I’ve heard it many times because my mother was a huge fan when you were on the air in Calgary.

2476 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Oh, well, thank you. Well, I am sure then you’re better than me. You probably know how to pronounce mine. So thank you for that.

2477 In your submission, you raised concerns about predatory practices by Canadian broadcasters. You cite demands for payment. You cite failure to compensate producers among other things. Can you clarify for us what specific mischief or harmful outcomes, for lack of a better term, that you believe these practices have caused?

2478 MR. DEVER: The issue is broadcasters find themselves under deep economic stress. And one of the things we’re finding, with my library, anyways, is that in order to qualify for to receive a tax credit, I have to have an approved broadcast for our investor base. And often, these broadcasters know it and demand they get the programming free of charge. So we end up supplying it. We also have had precedent with our library through another distributor where distributors have asked for payment in order to place it within Canadian media. So that, for me, is problematic.

2479 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that. I want to move on to CPE now. Based on your business model and expertise, do you believe that CPE requirements should be aligned for both traditional broadcasters and also for foreign online platforms? And as a part two to that question, how can the Commission, in your view, establish fair requirements that account for the diverse business structures within the industry?

2480 MR. DEVER: I would have to go back to Pierre Juneau and where, you know, we have a precedent that has worked very well. I believe strongly that if people are going to enter into our market, enter into Canadian airwaves or on Canadian IP bandwidth, they have a responsibility to evoke and present Canadian material. I think that in many ways we’re too lenient, certainly on foreign streamers and on letting them get away with murder. I think at the end of the day we have to go back to what has worked for us in the area of music and apply it in streaming.

2481 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you very much. You claim also that markets are now defined by language rather than by borders. And in light of this, how can the Commission, in your view, tailor its approach to ensure that English‑ and French‑language programming achieve distribution, discoverability, and also competitiveness on a global scale?

2482 MR. DEVER: I think one of the things we have issues with Canada is we’re a bit too coy about what we do. But to go back to my comment regarding, you know, if I go to Netflix and I sell a product to Netflix, they’re going to want all English language streaming rights. So it’s not defined by the Benelux or France or Germany, it’s all English language.

2483 So one of the things we have to do is support cross‑border participation of our own streamers and not to make sure that they’re confined within simply Canadian borders. But we also have to understand that in terms of media there are tool sets that we can put out there in order to promote ourselves more effectively. When I was growing up, every Thursday there was a big ad in the paper for this movie opening up or that movie opening up. We have social media, and I think social media in context of direct market of Canadian media is something that we should put forward as an alternative to the traditional prints and advertising budgets that used to support media. We have to change our attitude to what is media publicity and how do we gain awareness.

2484 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. You also spoke about having a return on investment for Canadian taxpayers. So how do you see that in practical terms, if you could sort of paint a picture for us. Are you suggesting that public funding should be equity investments or what are you envisioning?

2485 MR. DEVER: I think that we have to weigh it. I believe there should be an upside for Canadian taxpayers. I also believe strongly that if we are investing in a project that somehow there has to be some ability to recapture that investment. I think we have a responsibility to be disciplined, to be thoughtful, and to be organic. I think often government funding is expected, but I think if the idea of a return comes into play, then I think as a whole the industry becomes more disciplined.

2486 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you so much for answering all my questions. That’s all I’ve got, but I know that my colleagues also have questions for you. Thanks.

2487 MR. DEVER: Thank you.

2488 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. We will go over to our Vice‑Chair of Broadcasting. Thank you.

2489 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Not sure you know my mother, but she’s a big fan too.

2490 MR. DEVER: Really? Does she live in Calgary?

2491 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: No, unfortunately, she doesn’t live in Calgary.

2492 Thank you for your presentation. You emphasized the need for a viable distribution ecosystem, and this is certainly an issue that will be discussed in the context of our next hearing on market dynamics and sustainability. But in our context right now, what specific measures such as incentives but also perhaps requirements should we adopt to improve the discoverability and exportability of Canadian content?

2493 MR. DEVER: I think, essentially, we have to assess what the world market is currently right now, where is the growth area. We take a look at trends in Lat. Am., the trends in Africa, trends in Asia, and we have to move beyond our fortress North America conception and start really looking at how do we build critical alliances with foreign broadcasters, foreign outlets where we can develop reciprocal relationships for content distribution.

2494 The thing that I’m truly concerned about and I write in my newsletters is that we have fractured the traditional feature film ecosystem. At one time, the movies were in the theatres. As a result of the theatres, it boosted video sales. And now we’re at a rush to go into streaming where we’re taking films from being an event to being a quasi destination and turning them into commodities.

2495 And I think at the end of the day, you know, we have to be conscious of how do we rebuild the structures by assessing the market correctly and assessing where the potential is. I think we’re going to be very surprised, if we take a close look at the market, how welcoming the world is to Canada and how welcoming and sustainable that can translate into revenue for Canadian producers.

2496 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: So just before you we had representatives from Téléfilm, and we talked a little bit about discoverability. And the idea was to perhaps consider a requirement for shelf space on online platforms. Any thoughts on that specific suggestion?

2497 MR. DEVER: I am going to go back to my Pierre Juneau comment. You know, at some point, if we have a foreign entity like Netflix coming into Canada, I think it behooves us to say, Okay, welcome to Canada, but by the way, you know, 25 per cent of your content offerings should be of Canadian origin. I don’t think that is repugnant, and I think it should be evident. You know, just not asking for five per cent of the revenue to be redirected into something, which I believe they went to court over. I think we have to say, Listen, you’re coming into our house. You’re welcome in our house, but we want a certain percentage dedicated to Canadian programming.

2498 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. That’s all, Madam Chair.

2499 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for answering our questions. We would like to turn things back over to you for any concluding thoughts of if there is anything that we didn’t have a chance to cover that you would like to add.

2500 MR. DEVER: I thank you for your time, and this has been a real pleasure, so thank you.

2501 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

2502 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I will now ask Motion Picture Association ‑ Canada to come to the presentation table. When you are ready, please introduce yourself and your colleague, and you may begin.

Présentation

2503 MS. McALISTER: Before we begin our presentation, I just wanted to personally thank the Commission and Commission staff for our last‑minute request to move our appearance. As you can tell from my voice, I’ve been quite under the weather. And I’m not back to my usual singing voice, so I hope you will indulge me if it breaks mid‑sentence. We appreciate you all staying late on a Friday before the first long weekend.

2504 MS. NOSS: Madam Chair, Commissioners, and Commission staff. Thank you for inviting us to offer the shared policy perspective of the members of the Motion Picture Association in Canada. I’m Wendy Noss. I am the president of MPA‑Canada, and I am joined today by our counsel at Goodmans, Monique McAlister.

2505 We are the Canadian affiliate of the MPA, the leading advocate for the film, television, and streaming industry around the world. The studios we represent include those of The Walt Disney Company, NBCUniversal, Netflix, Paramount Global, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Amazon MGM Studios. The streaming services we represent offer a range of free, subscription, and hybrid choices for Canadian audiences, from global entertainment services like Disney+, Netflix, Paramount+, Pluto TV, and Prime Video to specialized services like NBCUniversal’s Hayu, and Sony’s Crunchyroll and SonyLIV.

2506 Global producers and distributors like the studios and services we represent have been an essential and integrated part of the production and distribution ecosystem in Canada for decades. We are major investors with a proven, long‑term commitment in Canada’s creative sector.

2507 We recognize the revisions to the Broadcasting Act mandate the Commission to regulate foreign online undertakings, but the Act and the policy direction are clear: This regulation must be a flexible incentives‑based framework that requires global services to contribute equitably in supporting Canadian talent and stories in ways that align with the distinct nature of their services and their unique business models.

2508 We believe, however, that the Commission’s preliminary determinations fall short of this goal, preserving outdated regulatory approaches, rather than embracing the transformative changes needed to fulfill the ambitions of the revised Broadcasting Act. We welcome this opportunity to share our vision for how the Commission can implement a truly modern regulatory framework that supports the creation of high‑quality Canadian programming that appeals to domestic and global audiences.

2509 Our recommendations draw from our experience both as investors who helped build the Canadian audiovisual sector and from working within diverse regulatory frameworks internationally.

2510 Broadcasting policies should be straightforward, sustainable, and flexible to enable global producers to do what they do best: creating entertainment for audiences at home and worldwide. Canada’s exceptional creative talent and infrastructure provide the foundation for this new obligation. And Broadcasting Act objectives are served by each of the different investment models used by international studios to create entertainment, delivering benefits throughout Canada’s creative economy.

2511 The investment of global producers and distributors in Canadian‑owned productions delivers substantial impact, now reaching an extraordinary $1 billion annually in financing for projects that are owned and developed by Canadian producers.

2512 Last year, foreign investment in Canadian‑owned productions was greater than the amount of financial support from all Canadian private broadcasters, from the CBC, and from the CMF and Téléfilm combined. These investments employ a wide variety of deal structures ‑‑ commissioning, financing, licensing, pre‑sales, co‑production agreements and more ‑‑ but all promote the success of Canadian producers and showcase Canada to audiences around the world.

2513 The movies and series offered by competitive global services to Canadian audiences span every genre of scripted, unscripted, animation, documentary, comedy, competition, lifestyle, and children’s programming, but all of the services we represent are unanimous in the need for the changes outlined in our written intervention.

2514 Our position is based in evidence prepared to assist the Commission in its deliberations. We’ve conducted extensive research on Canada’s distinct audiovisual marketplace, analyzed successful international regulatory frameworks, and compiled years of consistent public opinion polling. This polling aligns with the Commission’s own survey results on key issues, confirming that the Canadians overwhelmingly favour a more adaptable approach to defining Canadian programs, exactly what our proposal champions.

2515 Demands for the Commission to introduce new restrictions and conditions to mandate Canadian IP ownership stand in direct opposition to both this evidence and the requirements of the Act.

2516 Creating entertainment that resonates globally in an on‑demand environment requires creative flexibility. Productions vary dramatically in scale and financial risk profiles. While Canadian copyright ownership can and does work in many cases, it would be entirely inconsistent to adopt a rigid one‑size‑fits‑all approach to IP ownership in a modern regulatory framework that now includes foreign as well as Canadian broadcasting undertakings.

2517 The legislation and the policy direction require the Commission to adopt a more flexible model that supports investment required by the Act and finds a proper balance of the benefits of holding the IP of a production with a variety of business and financing models required to make successful Canadian programs.

2518 Beyond rejecting calls for new restrictions, we urge the Commission to introduce meaningful flexibility in modernizing the definition of Canadian programs. Parliament deliberately adopted a lower standard that requires foreign online undertakings only make the “greatest practicable use” of Canadian “creative and other human resources” in the production of Canadian programs.

2519 The contribution standard applied to Canadian broadcasters is much greater and reflects their existing obligations to “make maximum use, and in no case less than predominant use.” This difference was intentional, as Parliament rejected calls to impose the same standard because “it is just not realistic” to expect foreign online undertakings operating in a global market to contribute in the same way as Canadian broadcasters.

2520 To be consistent with the text, context, and purpose of the Act, the framework of the obligations to support Canadian programs applied to global streaming services should reflect four basic conditions. First, it should not impose any mandatory position, function, or element of a Canadian program, as doing so conflicts with the express statutory language of the “greatest practicable use.”

2521 Second, it should recognize the contributions of more creative talent in determining whether a program is Canadian. Adding just a few positions to a more than 40‑year‑old list ignores today’s modern production landscape. A contemporary framework should encourage hiring key Canadian creative talent whose contributions are recognized by industry peers, professional academies and guilds.

2522 Third, it should apply reasonable quantitative standards based on what’s practicable for global services.

2523 Fourth, it should incentivize the use of cultural elements to fulfill the essential mandate of producing programs that further Canadian artistic and cultural expression, and to better support and promote Canadian stories.

2524 After a modernized Canadian program definition is finalized, only then should the Commission establish contributions consistent with what is required under the act: equitable Canadian expenditure requirements that are proportional to their objectives and permit foreign online undertakings to contribute in a flexible manner consistent with the nature of their services and their existing business models.

2525 Online undertakings that produce programming should be allowed to fulfill their obligations through direct spending on production where that is consistent with their business model, not forced to pay into funds or into a program acquisition model that is inconsistent with how their services operate.

2526 As the Commission focuses now on defining Canadian programs, it is imperative to build new models and embrace transformative ideas on how each player can best contribute in a regulated system.

2527 We would be pleased to answer your questions on our recommendations, and thank you for the opportunity.

2528 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much and thank you for wrapping up the week with us.

2529 I know that the panel has a lot of questions, so I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott to kick things off. Thank you.

2530 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much.

2531 A lot to cover and sometimes it’s hard to know where to start.

2532 Maybe I’ll start with your assertion that streamers should not have the same CPE requirements as traditional Canadian broadcasters. You invoked the language “It is just not realistic”.

2533 I wonder if you could tell us ‑‑ maybe just walk us through some of the key points of your explanation on how a lower requirement is more equitable than an equal requirement. To put it another way, why is it just not realistic? I think that would be informative.

2534 MS. McALISTER: Thank you for the question, Vice‑Chair.

2535 As Ms. Noss noted in our opening statement, all of the MPA‑Canada’s proposals are based on the text, context and purpose of the act. When we said “It is just not realistic”, that was not our quote; that was a quote from the government during the legislative review debates.

2536 We think the government set out and Parliament set out a very clear roadmap for the Commission to guide you on this admittedly very difficult process that you’re on to comply with the act. In particular, there are certain guideposts that are set out.

2537 First, a CPE contribution should be equitable. In our view, equitable has to be coherent with the other half of the standard that is applied to foreign online undertakings, mainly “the greatest practicable use of Canadian creative and human resources”. The two standards have to coherently exist.

2538 As Ms. Noss said in our opening, it’s evident from the standard applied to Canadian broadcasting undertakings is much higher, of maximum use and no less than predominant use. It’s quite a distinction from “greatest practicable use”.

2539 The Commission is also guided to build on existing contributions, the impact that a service is having on the Canadian labour force and the Canadian broadcasting system in general in section 5(2). It’s also directed to grant flexibility in meeting expenditure requirements and to allow those who are in the business of production to contribute via direct investments in Canadian programs rather than through funds. That’s spelled out in the policy direction.

2540 The policy direction also guides you that investments and financial contributions should be proportional to objectives and the objectives should be clear.

2541 We believe that all of this means that you have to apply the CPE requirements in an equitable manner and, most importantly, in a non‑discriminatory manner.

2542 MS. NOSS: If I may, it’s been a bit disappointing to hear this position misrepresented earlier this week. This is not our position or assertion; the government made this clear multiple times throughout the legislative process that this bifurcated standard was deliberate and it was being made by the government. Again, the quote I read was Senator Gold in the Senate because it is just not realistic.

2543 I hasten to do this, because I know it’s late in the day, but I am just going to read to you from Owen Ripley’s response. As the government was rejecting calls yet again in the Senate to apply a single standard, they rejected over and over the call to make foreign online undertakings subject to the same maximum use standard. This was not an accident; it was deliberate.

2544 Assistant Deputy Minister Ripley said:

“The current paragraph (f) has indeed been elaborated and interpreted in a context where the only participants in the system have been Canadian broadcasters.

There has been a long debate on these two provisions...”

2545 Again, the bifurcated standard:

“...over the course of the former Bill C‑10 and the current Bill C‑11. The current drafting that is in the bill was the ultimate balance that parliamentarians who looked at Bill C‑10 decided this achieved the appropriate balance in terms of that issue, a recognition that there are many stakeholders who believe the maximum use standard is...important, but at the same time recognizing that when it comes to these global streaming services, there has indeed been concern expressed about the impact...[this would have] on [their] business models.”

2546 I think it’s important for the Commission to have that context when we talk about the text, context and purpose of the act. The different standard was very deliberate and it was Parliament’s intention.

2547 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks. I know we’ve been chatting on the side. I think there were some questions that aren’t in my list.

2548 Did you want to get in on this now or should I just keep going and come back?

2549 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think keep going.

2550 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. I’ll keep going.

2551 You and others have noted there are lots of ways that people can contribute to the system. Already this week, we’ve heard proposals for recognizing the value of training, or promotion, direct investment, payment into funds.

2552 From a regulatory machinery perspective, would it make sense to set one overall target for a broadcaster or a streamer and then give the flexibility to contribute toward that target in ways that you see fit across those categories, or would it make sense to set a number of targets, so you’ve got a training target, you’ve got a promotion target, you’ve got a programming investment target? Is there one that seems more effective to you than others?

2553 MS. McALISTER: We would have to obviously defer to the Commission as to which would be the most effective, but overall, we support flexibility and an incentives‑based model. The act lays out several pockets of potential areas of contribution. There’s Canadian programs, Canadian creators, services of exceptional importance, public interest groups, other initiatives and tools. It’s quite a wide list. As the Chair has indicated earlier, I think, in the course of these proceedings and in the Notice of Consultation, not every service should have to contribute in the same way.

2554 Similarly, you know, there’s over I think 60 objectives now in the act. Not every service can meaningfully contribute to every objective in the act, so we think whatever you adopt, provided it’s flexible, it considers the nature of the services and their business models, that will result in the greatest contribution to the Canadian broadcasting system.

2555 MS. NOSS: I’m not sure if this is a continuation of the potato salad thing, but what I would just say generally is, again, in our proposal we’ve tried to be very pragmatic and hew to the text, context and purpose of the act, and because of that we’ve set out a structure where there are a series of incentives, so there would be ‑‑ obviously, you know, the centre would be the use of key creative and human resources. Then, following that, there would be incentives: does it use a cultural element; do Canadians own or share in the IP; are 50 percent of all the lead performers; is it using a story from an underserved community or an indigenous story? All of these, the 60 or so objectives that you have to meet, can be part of a flexible framework where different services, which are different in their nature and their content mix, can serve best all of these different objectives that you have.

2556 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: The question was kind of potato salad adjacent.

2557 Following up on that theme of incentives, do you have ‑‑ for the companies that you represent, again I’m getting pretty specific here, how heavily would we need to incent things in order to nudge a specific behaviour? Are we looking at, you know, small incentives might be effective, just as a random example, but to support the creation of indigenous content? Would your members need to see a 2× or a 3× or are we talking about a 1.2× incentive to meaningfully shift behaviour?

2558 MS. NOSS: Two different points. The first is, as a trade association representing competitive businesses, it’s not appropriate for me to offer an opinion on individual business decisions.

2559 Having said that, and with that caveat, you raise just indigenous programs. Just to say, I think, you know, obviously there is a separate process that the Commission has undertaken in collaboration with indigenous communities and creators to determine how best to serve that constituency. Our members are looking to support that in whatever way they can as the Commission works with indigenous creative communities on that policy.

2560 I do think it’s an excellent example of the new benefits that again foreign players who are unregulated at the moment are bringing to the system. “Sugarcane”, which is an incredible, riveting documentary about the residential school system, was part of National Geographic on Disney+ showcased to the world. We all know about the success of “North of North”. Those are just opportunities that didn’t exist before, so there are great opportunities that exist in the market for collaboration for ways to showcase different, again, objectives and communities, and all of those are embraced by the different business models that our members have.

2561 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks.

2562 Two follow ups. One on incentives. Maybe I will rephrase my question in light of your lens.

2563 Are you aware of international incentives that have proven effective in encouraging certain types of content to be produced?

2564 MS. NOSS: What I would say is, in terms of international comparisons, first, we have presented to you the study that looks at international best practices. It shows a broad suite of benefits, a broad suite of elements that go to count toward national content qualification do deliver the broadest set of benefits. Right? Canada is an outlier, for example, right now in not having any component for a cultural element. There are just, as I said, a broad suite of benefits that are ‑‑ when you have a system that is broad‑based and has a variety of different factors, you’re going to see more variety and more benefits to the system.

2565 I think that, you know, if we look at what are the two most successful jurisdictions, you’d be looking at Korea, where they don’t have any sort of regulatory investment obligations, and the U.K. Those are the kinds of ‑‑ you know, you can see, even without regulation, there’s been incredible benefits to those national brands and to the content that’s created by the U.K. and Korea.

2566 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: You prompted a second follow up.

2567 How would you respond to folks who don’t deny that there’s lots of opportunity for great things to occur? We’ve seen lots of great examples, but are looking for more reassurance that such things won’t continue. Presumably a lot of those have been business decisions based on the circumstances at the time. Business plans change, circumstances change. Is there a risk that we might see that trend change?

2568 MS. McALISTER: To be realistic, the foreign streaming services operating in Canada are now regulated entities. If the Commission establishes a regulatory framework by which they’re required to make contributions, they will comply with the law. In that respect, they will meet their regulatory obligations, so there will be no reductions in that regard.

2569 I think we’re only looking at positives here, because none of the foreign streaming services, or any Canadian online undertaking, is currently subject to any regulatory obligation to contribute to the system, you know, keeping aside initial base contributions, so going forward these services will have to adhere to these regulatory requirements, will be contributing to the system, will be supporting Canadian creators, Canadian programs. You know, there will be, hopefully, flexibility in how they do that, but not I imagine flexibility on whether they can or not.

2570 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So would you be ‑‑ how would you react, then, to a provision that kind of locked in current levels of investment? “You’ve done lots of great things. You’ve made numerous fantastic investments in Canada. We’re going to sum that all up and make that kind of a baseline of your contribution going forward.” I’m looking for ways to ‑‑ because I do think we all recognize that great things are happening and we want to see that continue, can we at least, as a floor, kind of lock in current levels of contributions?

2571 MS. NOSS: With respect, right now the services are unregulated, so anything that they ‑‑ any investments that they’re making in Canada they’re making by virtue of business decisions that make sense for their individual services.

2572 Again, the Commission now is looking to establish equitable contribution with the standard set out in the act. I just don’t see how current investments in any way relate to the statutory obligations and the Commission’s objective here to establish these equitable contributions.

2573 I will say, if it’s helpful for the overall context, there’s no question that the time of peak TV is over, so whether it’s MoffettNathanson or, you know, any of the industry analyses that exist, after 2019, you know, there were these global streaming services launched all around the world. The spend on global scripted content was at an absolute high.

2574 Then we had the pandemic and all of that spending has now been rationalized, so you have far less feature films in the theatres, you have far less series being made, you have far fewer orders just as a general entertainment industry, not speaking for any particular service which may have a different profile. Overall, a broadcast series would be 24 episodes. A limited series on a streaming service is eight. The trend overall in the industry is less money being spent on global scripted entertainment from the peak TV time that happened adjacent to the sort of expansion of global streaming services around the world.

2575 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I fully understand that all of these investments are being made based on market decisions, that they’re not a result of regulatory requirements, but we do have the challenge of setting or calibrating those contribution levels, so what I’m trying to do is get a sense of the floor.

2576 In essence, my question is: is the current level of investment, regardless of the cause for it being made, and recognizing that it’s not regulatory‑triggered, would that constitute an equitable level?

2577 MS. McALISTER: I don’t think the Commission can look at the current level of investment that’s made in the open marketplace, unregulated marketplace, and establish that as the floor for a regulatory landscape, especially when the act is directing you to take a much more pragmatic, realistic proportionate approach. If you were to establish the existing investment obligations as a floor, I think you would end up with foreign streaming services contributing a disproportionate amount to the Canadian broadcasting system when you compare it to the Canadian broadcasting undertakings. That appears to be a discriminatory result that we don’t think is consistent with the scope of the act, the intent of the act.

2578 We also note that, you know, there’s been a lot of discussion at the hearing and in written submissions that foreign online undertakings have been getting a free ride and, you know, a free lunch, and all of that. I think foreign online undertakings and Canadian online undertakings, including HVOD services like Crave, have been complying with the regulatory framework set out by the Commission to date. They’ve not done anything untoward.

2579 The Commission has previously established a digital media exemption order, which it revisited several times over the decades and reaffirmed. The foreign online undertakings have acted in compliance with that digital media exemption order. It seems, you know, there’s this sense of wanting to be punitive because they’ve somehow taken advantage of the Canadian broadcasting system, but they’ve acted in compliance with the Canadian broadcasting system, as have the Canadian online undertakings and HVOD services that are still not contributing.

2580 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I just wanted to say that does answer my question. Thank you very much. That was helpful.

2581 I’m sorry, Ms. Noss; did you want to get in as well?

2582 MS. NOSS: No, we’re going to take yes for an answer.

2583 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. I’ll keep going then.

2584 I did want to talk a bit about the points system specifically. You’ve advocated for both the inclusion and more possible points, as well as flexibility in how to meet the threshold.

2585 Are there any aspects of the points system that you think are particularly problematic or difficult to fill with the way that you’re met with the types of shows that your members want to produce? To put it another way, if you had more flexibility, are there categories that you would lean into and categories that you would lean away from?

2586 MS. NOSS: I’m sorry? Do you mean categories of content or do you mean categories ‑‑

2587 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: No, I mean key creatives. Is it harder to find a Canadian director in order to produce the show you want or those ‑‑

2588 MS. NOSS: It’s really a question, and again we’re going to go back to the text of the act, of the “greatest practicable use of Canadian creative and other human resources”. The idea that there is going to be the addition of new restrictive positions, like showrunner, when right now that condition does not exist for Canadian broadcasters who have to make maximum and predominant use, again to us is just inconsistent with the kind of forward‑looking, flexible framework that needs to be implemented. There are a number of issues with showrunner in particular, but leaving that to the side, our position is there should be no mandatory position or element or condition. That’s just inconsistent with how global productions take place and how global productions are made.

2589 Often creative packages are in development for years. There are creative elements that are attached. There are different elements of financial risk. Again, it’s just inconsistent with the way productions are made for global audiences. The existing framework was set up for Canadian broadcasters who only made content in Canada and only showcased that content in Canada. And that is just fundamentally different than that kind of high quality international framework for those who are running global services.

2590 As I said, Canadian producers are a critical part of how these services attract global audiences and there will always be a role for them to partner with global producers who have developed their own content but the kind of creative opportunity that exists for the broad suite of Canadian key creatives is just so much greater than exists under this existing framework. So any of these mandatory positions will limit opportunities for creative collaboration, limit opportunities for the ‑‑ for all to be involved in the successful development of the kind of programming that succeeds with audiences around the world.

2591 And again, the limitations of the current what constitutes a key creative both on the physical production side and on the animation side just inconsistent with what exists in the world. So who a key creative is, is a credited position. It’s recognized whether it’s the Canadian Screen Awards, the Academy Awards, the BAFTA awards, all of these positions are recognized.

2592 There’s no logic to recognizing a composer but not hair and makeup. There’s no logic to ‑‑ in an audiovisual to recognizing the inputs of a picture editor and not a sound editor. You know, all of these are key creatives which are recognized for their talent and skill by their guilds and, right now, there is a very limited profile that was developed many, many years ago and just doesn’t apply to the global landscape.

2593 On the animation side, you may have seen from our submission this is a 2D animation creative framework. It doesn’t relate to 3D animation, which, by the way, Canada excels at internationally. Atomic, Mercury Filmworks, these are great Canadian animators working in 3D, but there are positions that are required in the animation framework that simply don’t exist. There’s no camera operator in 3D.

2594 So again, it’s both that there should be no mandatory positions or restrictions because that limits and constricts the kind of content that can be made and that there has to be an expansion in the flexibility of who counts as a key creative.

2595 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

2596 So I think I understand you clearly on kind of updating the list and expanding the list. I did want to ask, though, if we had no mandatory ‑‑ and granted, considerable or total flexibility, would that not have the effect of delegating to regulated parties what constitutes practicable? Shouldn’t the Commission have a role in determining what’s practicable, or should that totally be left to regulated parties to decide that we consider this practical, that’s good enough?

2597 MS. NOSS: So again, we’ve tried to look at international best practices and work within the framework that the Commission has provided. And what we’ve suggested is a 51 percent key creative obviously with ‑‑ predicated on the no mandatory positions which, again, is inconsistent with global production practices, and then with a series of incentives ‑‑ and I think you mentioned this with a gentleman earlier. I’m sorry; I don’t remember his name.

2598 But a series of incentives where you could serve other objectives. So to your point, what’s practicable, 51 percent key creatives and then have a series of incentives. Are you collaborating with a Canadian producer where they can own a share of the IP? Are 50 percent or more all lead performers Canadian? Is more than 75 percent of the total cast and crew? Do you have a cultural element?

2599 All of these go to your ‑‑ the standards to which the Commission is going to hold foreign online undertakings, but they recognize that equitable contribution level and what is practicable for global online undertakings.

2600 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much. Madam Chair, I’ll stop there.

2601 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

2602 Let’s go to Commissioner Paquette.

2603 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hello. So you mentioned in your intervention that the French language original program that originates from outside of Canada should not be included in determining whether a broadcasting undertaking offers program in both languages such as it raises of a minimum expenditure in French language. Can you explain more about this statement? Because I understand from this that your position is that your members should not have CPE obligations related to French content.

2604 Is that the correct interpretation?

2605 MS. McALISTER: So our interpretation was drawn from the Legislative debates again. When the discussion was occurring about what would constitute an original Canadian French language program, it was made quite evident that it should not include any programs from countries made outside of Canada, so from France, for example. So no international French language programs would be considered an original Canadian French language production.

2606 So similarly, we understand that dubbed programs would not constitute original French language Canadian programs.

2607 So for us, it stands to reason that if you cannot use dubbed or international French programs to fulfil a requirement, then those programs should not count to determine whether you have to comply with that requirement, if that makes sense.

2608 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So just to be clear, your position is that you shouldn’t have CPE or other kind of obligation in ‑‑

2609 MS. McALISTER: No, that’s not what we’re saying.

2610 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ production of French content?

2611 MS. McALISTER: We’re saying that the Act specifically states that that obligation to have an original French language CPE minimum expenditure requirement should apply to broadcasting undertakings that “offer programs in both official languages”. Now, there are a variety of streaming services and they approach French language programming in different ways, so services like Sony LIV, which is an Indian language service, or Crunchy Roll, which is a Japanese anime service, would not offer French language programming because it’s totally inconsistent with their nature of service.

2612 Other services, other foreign streaming services may offer programs in Canadian French and we think the best way to determine how they can support French language in Canada, which we recognize is very important, is by giving them the flexibility to do so in accordance with their nature of service and that the tailored conditions of service is the appropriate forum to determine that.

2613 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So you would be open to the idea of the ‑‑

2614 MS. McALISTER: Yes, when it’s consistent with the nature of the service and the business model.

2615 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Because I was wondering why this statement ‑‑ it’s still not clear for me, but I understand that there’s an openness.

2616 MS. McALISTER: There is an openness, yes.

2617 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: We heard from some intervenors that the interest is very low for French content production from your members. And considering that your business model seems to prioritize English content, if the Commission decides that online services should support French content, what would be the most appropriate way, in your mind?

2618 Would it ‑‑ as an example, would it be more appropriate to require a financial contribution or obligation or a production requirement?

2619 MS. McALISTER: As I said, because the services are all so different in how they support French language programs or whether they can support French language programs, we think that’s ‑‑ flexibility is key and that should be discussed with the individual services during their tailored conditions of service.

2620 We presume it’s not the intention of the Commission or the Act to require a service that is primarily a French language service to ‑‑ or a Japanese language service to morph into a French language service. That’s never been the approach the Commission’s taken before. But we recognize there is a renewed importance with respect to the support of the French language, so we are ‑‑ I think the services would be open to discussing that, what you consider the distinct conditions of service that would apply to each.

2621 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: You gave the example of a Japanese service, but this Japanese service is offering content in French or ‑‑ in your example.

2622 MS. McALISTER: No, it offers content entirely in Japanese.

2623 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: But the service that is offering French content, even if it’s dubbed content and a service that generates revenues exploiting this content in French could have obligations on the territory.

2624 MS. McALISTER: That is up to the Commission’s discretion.

2625 So a service like Crunchy Roll is a Japanese service. It may offer dubbed ‑‑ French programs that are dubbed in French, dubbed in Arabic, dubbed in Spanish, dubbed in multiple different languages. Our understanding is that a program dubbed in French would not be considered as a service providing programs in both official languages because they’re not providing a program that was originally a French language ‑‑ Canadian French language production.

2626 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So basically, you’re saying if it’s dubbed, it’s not providing a service in French. Is that what you’re saying?

2627 MS. McALISTER: That’s our understanding based on the discussion that went on when the Act was being enacted, that dubbed French programs or programs that generated from outside of Canada would not be ‑‑ not qualify to fulfil any minimum expenditure requirement.

2628 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Even if it’s dubbed in French and generates revenues in French, it shouldn’t be considered as a French service.

2629 MS. McALISTER: That’s our position, yes.

2630 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you very much. No more questions.

2631 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

2632 Let’s go to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

2633 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much.

2634 Ms. Noss, hello. I hope you’re feeling a bit better as this goes along.

2635 I just wanted to provide some reassurance up front that I think the Commission is not looking to put in place a punitive framework; more of an empowering and growth centric approach as per the Policy Direction.

2636 You know, you talked about international best practices. We’re not the only ones who require things from the various players, including international players coming into our markets. The Canadian market is a small one and needs absolutely to grow to look international.

2637 And so, you know, we did talk a lot about investing in Canadian content, so I would be interested in hearing your views on how the foreign online streamers can also contribute to the visibility of the content being created in Canada.

2638 We heard a lot about the importance of making sure Canadian content is discovered in a prominent way. We had representatives from Telefilm talking about shelf space. There isn’t a scenario where the Canadian content market can develop without access to shelf space. So I would be interested in better understanding the position of the organizations that you represent and to what extent there’s an openness to make concrete commitments to giving that sort of visibility to Canadian content on their own platform.

2639 That would be my first question.

2640 MS. NOSS: Thank you for the question, Vice‑Chair.

2641 I think if I can go back to your first ‑‑ the important of marketing and promotion because I think that’s ‑‑ I was here for Francesca’s discussion and how important that is. And it is ‑‑ we are not in a world where supply matters. We are in a world where demand matters, and so there is no point in shelf space if there is not an audience that is eager to consume.

2642 And so I think that is also one of the challenges that the Commission has now, which is these old frameworks were based on supply, right. You were a Canadian broadcaster. You would get a ‑‑ you would put it on at 9 o’clock and people could only watch it at 9 o’clock and there was a limited supply. There were no other broadcasters permitted in Canada and that was all there was.

2643 We are in the world of infinite supply now, and so to your point, marketing and promotion on and off service is absolutely critical. It’s no longer about a 30‑second trailer. It’s about influencer marketing, social marketing, digital marketing, going around to film festivals, community marketing. Just a whole variety of experiential marketing that takes place off service which has growing importance and which is now part and parcel of how you can find your audience.

2644 So this is one of the issues that we are hoping, again, when the Commission goes to tailored conditions of service, the importance of marketing and promotion is ‑‑ in finding audience is absolutely paramount and those kind of expenditures should count towards CPEs.

2645 Some of you may have seen the discussion where, you know, a distributor was saying if I’m buying a Canadian documentary for $1 million, I need to spend another $1 million to market it and promote it. I’m not getting the green light to license that content from my service unless I have the same amount of money to promote it.

2646 So with respect, I don’t think it’s a shelf space issue. I think there is a renewed importance in it ‑‑ and it’s just not comparable to the framework the Commission was working with before in a closed Canadian system. Productions have to find their audience, and marketing and promotion off service is absolutely integral to that.

2647 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

2648 Moving on to IP, also we heard Telefilm this morning or this afternoon reminding us that IP control is paramount to creative control, so how do you reconcile the argument for a more flexible IP approach, which is something that several intervenors are putting forward, including as a condition for, you know, promoting co‑ventures and international productions and attracting foreign investment but, at the same time, the need for Canadian creators to remain in control of their art?

2649 How do you reconcile these two?

2650 MS. McALISTER: Well, we think there’s room for both. And the Act and the Policy Direction, neither of them require Canadian ownership of IP. The Act requires the Commission to consider whether Canadians have a right or interest, including copyright, that allows them to control and benefit in a significant and equitable manner from the exploitation of the program.

2651 So it’s one non‑determinative consideration that the Commission has to look at when it is determining what qualifies as a Canadian program. It’s one of, I think, approximately five different factors the Commission has to consider, but no one factor is determinative.

2652 Similarly, the Policy Direction directs you to support Canadian ownership of IP, but in the same provision it also recognizes and directs you to consider that the Canadian broadcasting system is also comprised of foreign online undertakings as well.

2653 We think that a flexible incentives‑based system such as the Model 3 that the Commission proposed is appropriate ‑‑

2654 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Do you want some water?

2655 MS. McALISTER: I’m watered up, lozenged, everything. Thank you for bearing with me and my raspy voice.

2656 We think the Commission’s Model 3 meets the moment and is consistent with the Act. It’s also consistent with your co‑venture model that’s been in place for decades and, as we heard from an earlier intervenor, with, you know, the coproduction models that Canada has in place with numerous countries ‑‑

2657 MS. NOSS: I’m going to try and rescue her from ‑‑ for the moment.

2658 So yes, I mean, we do believe your Model 3 is what meets the moment and it is consistent, again, with the text, context and purpose of the Act.

2659 In the MDR Report which we provided to you on international best practices, there is no other country in the world that requires IP ownership as a condition to qualify as national content.

2660 Your co‑venture model that has been in place and has yielded, I think, very successful outputs and programs, U.S. IP ownership is allowed even with the Canadian broadcaster standard of maximum and predominant use.

2661 So again, where there’s practicable use, it’s inconsistent to have a mandatory IP requirement. It will narrow the scope and scale of content and it’s, again, inconsistent with the kind of financial risk that is undertaken by producers and their incentive to ensure that production is a success.

2662 When we go back to the legislative debates, the one in many factors in section 10, much like the bifurcated standard in section 3, was discussed and debated. It was made clear in the Senate when the government rejected amendments to make IP ownership mandatory that the list in section 3 was list of many factors to be considered and that it would be inconsistent with having that list that any one factor would be determinative.

2663 And those quotes are contained in the appendices to our submission, but we’re happy to provide you with the specific references later.

2664 So again, you know, it’s not an either/or proposition. As I said before, Canadian producers in collaboration with Canadian producers are absolutely integral to the success of general entertainment services and they’re going to continue to collaborate with them, but there are more than 60 countries with whom Canada has international coproduction treaties right now. And that has allowed Canadian creative talent to achieve success in a wide variety of films and there’s ‑‑ this is an opportunity. This is not a limiting factor.

2665 When you have the ability to collaborate with global producers on content, there is no one model that works, again, based on financial risk, who commissioned the project, who put together the creative package. And we would just urge the Commission to look at the research we put forward from KPMG that looks at all of the different models that are in play in the Canadian market. It is not just a question of IP ownership or not IP ownership.

2666 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

2667 But IP ownership is a key issue that we’ve been asked to look at, and I thank you for quoting back to us the legislative debate. We are well aware of what’s going on to that respect, well aware of the Policy Direction as well, so thank you for that.

2668 But IP is key to our conversation. Every single intervenor has raised IP. Some very interesting models have been put forward. I’m trying to get a sense of whether there’s a flexibility coming from the online streamers in respect to the various IP models trying to find something that works but that also allows us to meet our public policy objectives because that’s something that, you know, has been put forward by the intervenors, let’s make sure we have a system that allows us to retain some creative control, and that’s why I was asking those questions.

2669 MS. NOSS: And we think it’s your Model 3. That is the model that meets the moment, again with an incentive provision for IP ownership that can be applied after the IP ‑‑ after the key creative test.

2670 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Maybe just one last question before I pass the baton to my colleagues.

2671 You’ve stated that online undertakings do not benefit from Canadian funding mechanism. However, as we’ve heard today from APTN in particular, productions like “North of North” receive financing from the Canadian Media Fund. In this case, Netflix collaborated on a production that benefited from CMF support.

2672 So how do you reconcile your position that foreign online undertakings do not benefit from Canadian funding when, in practise, your members could gain from collaborative projects?

2673 MS. NOSS: So it may just be a terminology issue. And I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the APTN intervention, but let me just try and sort of go back to the more general we don’t ‑‑ foreign online undertakings don’t benefit from CMF more generally.

2674 So the contribution agreement that the government has ‑‑ first let me premise this by saying CMF does great work. They serve their constituency of Canadian producers and Canadian broadcasters well, and they serve an integral part in the system.

2675 But at the same time, the limitations on their contribution agreement from the government prohibit them from funding a project where it’s not going to a Canadian producer and a Canadian distributor in Canada.

2676 So, our members are not permitted to have distribution rights in Canada, which as you know is the primary market for a production made in Canada. So, when we say we cannot benefit from the CMF, that is because the contribution agreement with the CMF and the Government of Canada limits who can get those public funds ‑‑ it’s Canadian producers only ‑‑ and limits who can distribute in Canada, which is Canadian broadcasters only.

2677 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: But you do benefit from the fact that you may have international rights associated with a project that’s co‑funded by the CMF?

2678 MS. NOSS: Again, if that’s the structure that was used for that project, then that’s the structure that was used for that ‑‑

2679 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Yes.

2680 MS. NOSS:  ‑‑ project. But I think it’s more foundational that the ‑‑ just going back to the sort of central premise, our members are in the business of producing content, just like Canadian broadcasters. They are not Canadian cable companies, which are the other group that contributes to the CMF. So, the priority for those who produce content in accordance with the practice direction is to produce that content. And that’s what our members are doing, and that’s what our members will do under a CPE framework.

2681 Contributing to a fund where they cannot have any of the distribution rights in the very market in which the content is produced is not consistent with, again, the equitable framework that the Commission is putting together.

2682 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

2683 MS. McALISTER: If I can just add to that, another issue with, you know, having to contribute to the CMF is an issue of essentially subsidizing your competitor. So, the Commission heard earlier this week that only independent producers can draw from the CMF. That’s not entirely the case. As you know, the performance envelope is the largest envelope for the CMF, and in order for that envelope to be triggered, there has to be a licence fee from a Canadian broadcaster of at least, I believe, 50 percent of the eligible costs. So, obviously, that program will be shown on a Canadian broadcaster, which is clearly defined to exclude a foreign online undertaking.

2684 In addition, the CMF’s guidelines for the performance envelope allows large broadcasters to commit up to 25 percent of their performance envelope allocations to their broadcast affiliated production companies and their in‑house productions. And small broadcasters are not subject to any such limit. So, essentially, you’re asking foreign online undertakings to contribute to the CMF, a large portion of which will go to the performance envelope program, which will be used to subsidize the programs of their Canadian competitors.

2685 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: On the Canadian market. But of course, we’re now talking about the international market. So, I’m just thinking of North of North, for example, which is now in the top 10 on Netflix. It’s probably generating a lot of revenues on the international market, right ‑‑ so, this is revenue that is going directly to those who have co‑produced North of North, including Netflix. Am I understanding this correctly? I’m just trying to figure out exactly, because, you know, you make the distinction between the Canadian ‑‑ yes, the Canadian market ‑‑ we’re not benefiting from, you know, the Canadian market, but there are rights associated with international distribution. And my understanding is, these rights are, ‑‑

2686 MS. NOSS: I think what it‑‑

2687 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ you know, do provide revenue. Right?

2688 MS. NOSS: I ‑‑ no, I ‑‑

2689 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Am I correct?

2690 MS. NOSS:  ‑‑ think what it ‑‑ again, we can’t speak to individual deals of individual productions. We just don’t have any knowledge of that. But if I may, I think what it illustrates is what you were talking about earlier, which is there is no one business model. There are many models in which a Canadian production company will retain copyright, and there will be a deal for international distribution with a global service. It’s not a one or the other.

2691 The idea of bringing foreign online undertakings into the system should not be seen as, you know, there’s some fixed pie. There’s more opportunity for Canadian creatives now than ever before, to have Canada showcase to the world, to have their talent showcased to the world. So, these are producers who make content, and just like Canadian broadcasters now, who fulfill their requirements with CPEs and not contributions to funds, these producers also should fulfill their content with CPEs and not mandated contributions to funds that, again, operate as cross subsidies to their competitors.

2692 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. I was trying to understand who truly benefits from access to funds like the CMF, both domestically and internationally.

2693 MS. McALISTER: If I can add one thing too, you know, a model that you just described where a Canadian takes the Canadian broadcast rights and a non‑Canadian takes the rest of the world rights, I mean, that works beautifully in an unregulated system. But in a regulated system, when a foreign online undertaking has to meet a certain level of Canadian programming expenditures, it’s not clear to us ‑‑ and I know this has been a proposal by B.C. and others ‑‑ that having the non‑Canadian take just rest‑of‑the‑world rights would qualify as Canadian programming expenditures, because we understand Canadian programming expenditures are based on an amortization basis when the program is broadcast in Canada. If our understanding is not correct and the Commission would recognize rest‑of‑the‑world rights as meeting Canadian programming expenditure requirements, then that would be a completely different story.

2694 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. Let’s go to Commissioner Naidoo.

2695 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yes, thanks for being here. Earlier, you had mentioned something, and I just wanted to go back to it, to clarify. I mean, obviously, there’s people in the audience and there’s people watching, and I just want to make sure that all the information is out there.

2696 So, you had referred to an official’s response to a committee meeting, suggesting that effectively your obligations should be lower, subject to the utmost flexibility, and that they should fully align with your business lines.

2697 At the same time, though, the Act passed by Parliament, when it talks about your obligations, it says that ‑‑ and I quote: “Each foreign online undertaking shall make the greatest practicable” ‑‑ who invented that word? Really? Serious ‑‑ “practicable use of Canadian creative and other human resources, and shall contribute in an equitable manner to strongly support the creation, production, and presentation of Canadian programming, taking into account the linguistic duality of the market they serve.” (As read)

2698 The policy direction, though ‑‑ so, that was the Act ‑‑ the police direction, though, goes a step further: “The Governor in Council directed the Commission to impose requirements to support a wide range of Canadian programming and Canadian creators.” It then said ‑‑ and again, I quote: “The requirements, both financial and non‑financial, must be equitable, given the size and nature of the undertakings, and equitable as between foreign online undertakings and Canadian broadcasting undertakings.” (As read)

2699 So, all of this to say, right ‑‑ throwing that information out there, many of your members are quite large. So, when we consider equitable contributions to the system, shouldn’t we be considering their size? That’s part one of the question. Okay? And I can repeat these.

2700 Part two of the question is, when we do consider the greatest practicable use of resources, shouldn’t we be considering the overall use of resources in Canada in comparison to Canadian services? And wouldn’t that then mean, if that was the case, that your financial contributions should be elevated in order to ensure that your requirements are equitable?

2701 And I can repeat that. I know that’s a lot to unpack, so, ...

2702 MS. NOSS: Why don’t we do the first one?

2703 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: First one. So...

2704 MS. NOSS: (Off microphone / Sans microphone)

2705 THE SECRETARY: Sorry, please open your mic.

2706 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. First one. Many of your members are ...

2707 MS. NOSS: (off microphone / Sans microphone) The first one we can do.

2708 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Sure.

2709 MS. NOSS: The second one, I’m not ‑‑ maybe my colleague can work on it and we can have some further discussion. I’m glad you read the section that sets out the standard for foreign online undertakings. We fundamentally agree. That standard was the subject of debate and discussion, and it contrasts with Canadian broadcasting undertakings who have to make maximum and no less than predominant use of Canadian creative and other human resources.

2710 So, it’s a twofold section. Right? So, we have to make greatest practicable use of Canadian creative and other human resources, and Canadian broadcasters have to make maximum and no less than predominant use. So, it is not the size of the undertaking that matters. There was a deliberate standard for the use of Canadian creative and human resources, and the debate was originally around whether Canadian broadcasters would have a lower standard than they do today. That was rejected as well.

2711 So, again, Parliament’s intention was clear. It is the greatest practicable use of Canadian creative and other human resources to equitably support the creation, production, and presentation. Again, our proposal is entirely consistent with that text and context and purpose of the Act. And that is why we’re suggesting to the Commission that more flexibility now is needed than currently exists under a standard that is maximum or no less than predominant use.

2712 So, the second one you may have to help us with.

2713 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Oh, okay. Go ahead and answer the second one. I may come in with a follow‑up, but I’m going to let you go ahead. I can repeat it. Would you like me to repeat it?

2714 MS. McALISTER: I would love you to repeat

2715 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay, yes.

2716 MS. McALISTER:  ‑‑ it, thank you.

2717 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So, when we consider the greatest practicable use of resources, shouldn’t we be considering the overall use of resources in Canada in comparison to Canadian services? So, wouldn’t that mean then that your financial contributions should be elevated in order to ensure that your requirements are equitable?

2718 MS. McALISTER: That is not our interpretation of the Act. We think it’s quite clear that ‘practicable use’ is a lower standard than ‘maximum and no less than predominant use’ and that they have to be interpreted separately, not in relation to each other. I think that’s evident from the plain and ordinary meaning of the words, as well as the context in which it was debated.

2719 I mean, the Government made it quite clear that it would be unrealistic to expect non‑Canadian online undertakings to contribute at the same level ‑‑ as much as Canadian broadcasters, and that you had to take into consideration the fact that they have global business models, not ‑‑ you know, they are not just focussed entirely on Canada.

2720 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I always feel so sorry for you when you are using your voice. It sounds really lovely and husky.

‑‑‑ Rires

2721 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I just want to ‑‑ I think we have to get down to some definitions here. I think we have to really examine the language that we’re using, the words that we’re using. So, I’m wondering if you can speak specifically to what you think ‘an equitable contribution’ means, as set out in Section 4 of the policy direction.

2722 MS. NOSS: We are going to have to look at Section 4 of the policy, to answer that.

‑‑‑ Pause

2723 MS. McALISTER: We think Section 4 of the policy direction just adds more detail to the Act itself, which clearly says that every broadcasting undertaking ‑‑ not just foreign online undertakings ‑‑ should be contributing in a manner that is consistent with the nature of their service. And that is not something that we’re advocating just for foreign online undertakings; we think that’s a standard that applies to all.

2724 I think fundamentally MPA Canada and the MPA services are asking to be treated in the same manner as the Canadian broadcasters that have come before you that have asked you to implement a flexible, incentives‑based system to allow them to contribute in a manner that is consistent with the nature of their services and their business models, and that will only strengthen the Canadian broadcasting system. I think the only fundamental difference is, we think that should apply to everybody.

2725 MS. NOSS: I am very cognizant of the fact that this is Friday before the long weekend, and so I’m not going to read the text, but the intent of Parliament was clear. It’s reflected in the text, and the material that we’ve included with our appendices, we think, strengthens that and makes it clear that Parliament’s intent was that ‘an equitable contribution to strongly support and make the greatest practicable use’ is a lower standard than ‘maximum and no less than predominant use’, but I won’t read them now.

2726 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Well, thank you. I am going to pause for a minute, because I just want to make sure that we got what we need on the record. Okay? So, if we could just take a second while I just check with our staff at the back? One moment, please.

‑‑‑ Pause

2727 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I think what we are going to do, given that it is late in the day on a Friday before a long weekend, and one of us doesn’t have much of a voice, although it sounds lovely and deep and rich, is ask for an RFI. So, I’m going to hand it over, I think, to the lawyers to frame how we’re going to do that.

2728 MS. WEXLER: A request for information will be put on the record and submitted to the parties, and it will be specific as to the questions that we’re asking for, and the date for which the response will be provided in that letter.

2729 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Does that work for you?

2730 MS. NOSS: Absolutely, yes.

2731 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you very much. That’s all I have, and I’m handing it back to Madam Chair.

2732 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.

2733 Perhaps I could ask one final question, and then we will turn things back over to you for any concluding remarks.

2734 You talked a lot about the need for meaningful flexibility, and ‘flexible’ and ‘flexibility’ is a term that we’ve heard a lot. I think one of your members included that term over 50 times in their submission. And, you know, so, we’ve heard that side. We’ve also heard that the only way to get results is by imposing requirements. So, we’ve heard that from other parties.

2735 And my question is, how can we, as a regulatory body that is putting this place ‑‑ and it is in the Act ‑‑ how can we ensure that all of the public policy goals that are in the Act are achieved with ‘meaningful flexibility’?

2736 MS. McALISTER: That is a very good question, because you do have a lot of public policy goals to meet. We believe that Parliament in its wisdom determined that not everybody can meet every goal. So, there are a diversity of services within the Canadian broadcasting system, and I think it’s just natural, by market forces, et cetera, that they do tend to diversify and focus on different segments of the population, to capture those very valuable eyeballs. And in their own way, they will meet the objectives ‑‑ certain objectives of the Act.

2737 We also recognize that you as a Commissioner, you know, have to have certain regulations and standards that have to be met. We hope that you will do it in a manner that will allow parties to ultimately have some flexibility in how they meet those standards that’s consistent with their natures of service.

2738 MS. NOSS: And I would just add, that is ‑‑ you know, the beauty of a system that focusses on incentives and outcomes in a competitive environment is that different services bring different strengths to the system. So, some will be able to serve some of those outcomes better than others, but again, a flexible incentives‑based framework will help the Commission achieve all of those goals.

2739 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that. So, with that, perhaps we can turn things back over to you for concluding remarks.

2740 MS. NOSS: I am mindful of the time. There has just been, I think, a misrepresentation of our position on news. If we could ask everyone’s indulgence, and I’m just going to ask Ms. McAlister to offer some clarification.

2741 MS. McALISTER: First, I have to be a lawyer and say, as the Commission is well aware, this issue is currently before the Court, so we have to reserve all rights.

2742 But there was a lot of discussion about MPA Canada’s position about news, as driven by the fact that the members cannot access the independent local news fund and would like the ability to produce news and access the fund. And fundamentally, that is not MPA Canada’s position on local news, and never has been.

2743 None of the MPA members’ services are in the business of producing local Canadian news, and have no ambition to. We see that that is something that is within the purview of Canadian broadcasters and the Canadian public broadcaster, and the community element, and those are the only three times within the Act that news is mentioned.

2744 Our position with respect to news is that it is inconsistent with the Act and the policy direction because you’re forcing foreign online undertakings that are not in the business of producing news to contribute to the funding of news. It’s not consistent with their natures of service or their business models, and it’s also not consistent with the Commission’s longstanding local television policy, which only requires Canadian local conventional television stations and BDUs that are licensed to serve local communities to provide local and reflective programming, including local news, to their constituents. I don’t need to tell you, but obviously, foreign online undertakings cannot be licensed to serve local communities, and therefore it would be inconsistent with the local television policy.

2745 So, we just wanted to correct that because there is no desire for the MPA members to access the existing news fund or any news fund.

2746 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you for sharing your viewpoints.

2747 MS. NOSS: And with that, I will simply say we urge the Commission to move beyond outdated regulatory frameworks and embrace a truly modern one, to fulfill the ambitions of the Broadcasting Act.

2748 Again, thank you to Commission staff, the translators, and everyone else who has stayed on the Friday of the long weekend, and thank you to the Commission for your consideration of our proposals.

2749 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your participation.

2750 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. This concludes this week’s public hearing. We will reconvene on Tuesday at 9:00 a.m.

2751 Thank you.

‑‑‑ L’audience est ajournée à 15 h 57 pour reprendre le mardi 20 mai 2025 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Deana Johansson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton