Transcription, Audience du 20 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

2757 DAZN Limited

2814 Youth Media Alliance - Alliance Médias Jeunesse

2840 Epic Story Media Inc.

2865 Huminah Huminah Animation Inc.

3051 Public Interest Advocacy Centre

3147 Screen composers Guild

3261 Société professionnelle des auteurs, compositeurs du Québec et des artistes entrepreneurs

3287 Association des professionnels de l'édition musicale

3408 Music Canada

3505 Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada

3561 Indigenous Screen Office

3667 Société de télédiffusion du Québec

Transcription

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

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L’audience débute le mardi 20 mai 2025 à 9 h 00

2752 THE SECRETARY: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Week 2 of the hearing.

2753 We will start this morning with the presentation of DAZN Limited, appearing remotely. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin. Just one second, we’re not hearing the sound in the room.

2754 MS. DIONNE: Okay?

2755 THE SECRETARY: It’s perfect, thank you. You may begin.

2756 MS. DIONNE: Start again? Okay.

Présentation

2757 MS. DIONNE: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners, and Commission staff. I’m Deidra Dionne, vice president with DAZN in Canada, and joining me is Michayel Villani and Ben Haskey, remotely from the United Kingdom.

2758 I have a long history in sports. I have represented Canada in the Olympics twice, previously worked at Rogers Sports and Media, and am an elected council member of the International Ski and Snowboard Federation, an international sport‑governing body of the IOC.

2759 DAZN is based in the United Kingdom as a global online service with operations and employees in multiple countries. DAZN’s format and theme is focused squarely on international sports. We cater to a global audience of subscribers with a keen interest in international teams and events.

2760 Today, DAZN is the largest global sports streaming platform in the world. The service launched in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Japan in 2016, Canada in 2017, the US and Italy in 2018, and Spain and Brazil in 2019. In 2020, DAZN expanded to more than 200 countries and territories, serving sports fans worldwide with a breadth of live international offerings catered to domestic territories.

2761 DAZN is available on a variety of platforms, including Roku, Apple TV, Google Chromecast, iOS, Android, Xbox, PlayStation as well as Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Safari browsers via DAZN.com.

2762 The majority of DAZN’s sports programming is live, unscripted coverage of sports events from countries around the world. DAZN produces very little content of its own. We acquire the rights to program these live, unscripted sports events across both global tenders and, in some cases, domestic rights opportunities. The right to broadcast live sports is an exclusive right offered via various governing sports bodies and professional leagues, and companies like DAZN must either engage in a tender or be asked to negotiate for the opportunity to secure the content.

2763 We understand that the Commission’s main focus in these consultations has been on entertainment and information services. The Commission didn’t mention sports services in its Notice of Consultation for this proceeding. That makes sense to us. We agree that the Commission should continue to focus on Canadian creative positions, primarily for scripted productions, Canadian stories, and artistic and cultural expression.

2764 Domestic content requirements ‑‑ including financial contributions, exhibition, and expenditure obligations ‑‑ are not appropriate for international sports services like DAZN. Unlike traditional entertainment broadcasters, our business model depends on going out every rights cycle and sublicensing content, not on commissioning content.

2765 It is not DAZN’s role or business model to focus on local markets. Countries around the world, including Canada, have domestic broadcasters and online streaming services producing and offering local sports content. These are provided by public broadcasters and local or regional broadcasters serving domestic markets, and those broadcasters’ associated online services.

2766 As an international sports streaming platform, DAZN is often expressly exempt from many broadcast regulatory obligations in the countries it serves. Those regimes typically focus on produced, scripted content or public affairs and news programming, and not sports services. We discuss this in our written statements

2767 We understand that the CRTC currently certifies live or live‑to‑tape production of sports events only where a Canadian production company controls the production and provides the commentators, and if the event is outside of Canada, if Canadian teams or athletes participate. That makes sense for the CBC and local, regional broadcasters serving domestic markets and for their associated online services. But that is not DAZN’s role. Our viewers are primarily looking for international sports events. Other than certain feeds provided by Canadian content licensees, we don’t carry or produce certified Canadian content. Our subscribers get that from the Canadian broadcasters.

2768 Why is DAZN in Canada and one of our earliest launches? Canada is a very multicultural country, and our viewers include Canadian fans of sports and leagues that their friends and family in other parts of the world follow. Canadians often play sports abroad: there is currently a record number of Canadian NFL players, and top tier European football, or soccer, players in Champions League, Europa League, and domestic and national competitions.

2769 Other than DAZN, there is little coverage of this wide range of sports that Canadians play abroad, including women’s soccer ‑‑ where DAZN currently broadcasts more women’s soccer content than any broadcaster in the world ‑‑ and rugby for our Canadian audience. We play a key role in showcasing elite Canadian athletes to Canadians and fans around the world, regardless of whether our content is certified Canadian.

2770 Our business model depends on going out every rights cycle and sublicensing content, not on commissioning content. For that reason, DAZN operates with little control over what content we can acquire from whom, when, and for how long we can offer it, including on what terms. In these circumstances, a Canadian content exhibition or expenditure requirement on an international sports service like DAZN would be an unfair, undue burden.

2771 Moreover, a Canadian content exhibition requirement in sports broadcasting (or the sports industry in general) would be very hard to ascertain and predict. Amongst other issues, players change teams and leagues; they miss games and seasons due to injuries; and in certain cases the composition of leagues can change. So not only is acquiring the right to the content uncontrollable, but so is predicting the Canadian makeup of a game or a league.

2772 As a global online service with operation and employees in multiple countries and a format and theme focused squarely on international sport, DAZN is very different from mainstream sports services such as Rogers SportsNet and Bell’s TSN. Their CPE requirement reflect their Canadian operations and emphasis on Canadian sport but also their globally unique vertical structure and inherent advantage to acquire and keep the rights to popular Canadian sports content. In fact, many of the most valuable rights in the Canadian market are negotiated between ownership parties without the opportunity for third parties such as DAZN to bid for the content. Imposing a Canadian content exhibition and expenditure requirement on an international sports service like DAZN would only exacerbate ‑‑ sorry, I had too much coffee ‑‑ exacerbate the competitive situation.

2773 And for all of the reasons we’ve discussed ‑‑ including our global focus; our unscripted, live content; our viewers’ expectations and the limited and competitive scope to acquire local content; our value‑add to Canadian sports fans and athletes with ties to abroad ‑‑ countries around the world have not imposed exhibition or expenditure requirements on services like DAZN. We summarize some of these regimes in our written comments.

2774 The CRTC should recognize that domestic content expenditure requirements are not appropriate for international sports services. In this context, the initial base contribution of five per cent imposed by the CRTC on online services, including international sports services like DAZN, makes Canada an outlier internationally. Our senior leadership continues to contemplate if the levies imposed make prioritizing growth in Canada a priority.

2775 The CRTC must recognize DAZN’s distinct business model and offering and exempt it from the base contribution requirement and the Canadian content regime. Exempting international sports services like DAZN would ensure that the CRTC is imposing regulatory requirements only when necessary to implement Canada’s broadcasting policy; Canada is recognizing and aligning itself with countries around the world that exempt international sports services from regulatory requirements; and international services are not dissuaded from entering or continuing to serve the Canadian market.

2776 Thank you for the opportunity to appear today.

2777 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your presentation. I do believe that this may be the first time that DAZN has appeared at one of our public hearings. I don’t know if that’s accurate, but that’s my understanding. So if that’s the case, thank you very much for being here with us.

2778 So as you know, the Commission has already made a determination that online services that benefit from their place in the Canadian broadcasting system by generating significant revenues in Canada should contribute to the system. So I’ll focus on questions regarding the “how,” if I can put it that way.

2779 We’ve heard from some intervenors, so for example from Blue Ant and Apple, that broadcasters should have a flexible option, so should have two options for Canadian programming expenditures. They’ve suggested that broadcasters can either produce or acquire Canadian content or contribute to funds.

2780 So you have talked about some of the challenges for DAZN in terms of producing and acquiring Canadian sports programming. So I’m just wondering what your views are on this flexible approach that has been proposed.

2781 MS. DIONNE: Well, I think inherently that’s not a sports streaming business model is to work in the same way that those companies do. I think a sports streaming service like DAZN is just unique in its business practice. And so I think our position would be as stated, and that flexible approach wouldn’t necessarily be something that could work across sports universally.

2782 THE CHAIRPERSON: So how would you say, are there other options in terms of how undertakings like DAZN could support the Canadian system?

2783 MS. DIONNE: Well, I think we already do support the Canadian system. We are broadcasting sports that Canadians play abroad as well as not just Canadians but broadcasting sports that Canadians are interested in. And just because it happens in Canada as a sporting event doesn’t mean it’s inherently of interest to Canadians. So I think there’s a role for us in how we actually serve the Canadian system by ensuring that things that are happening outside of our borders are making its way into Canadian homes in a world where it is difficult to get access to sports that are outside the main four professional North American sports in this country.

2784 THE CHAIRPERSON: And can you talk to us a little bit more about your Canadian operations and the revenues generated in Canada?

2785 MS. DIONNE: Sorry, could you be a little bit more specific? Do you ‑‑ revenue or operations or ...?

2786 THE CHAIRPERSON: Yeah, could you talk to us a little bit more about the revenue that DAZN generates in Canada from the operations here?

2787 MS. DIONNE: Well, we are a subscription‑based OTT platform, and so we provide a service to Canadians to subscribe to watch our content. And in addition to having a subscription base, we also have a ton of content that’s available for free to Canadians. So we broadcast all of our women’s soccer content as well as select content from Champions League and UEFA competitions ahead of a paywall. And that is done all across Canada. And we have a specific sports rights portfolio that is made available to Canadians within our DAZN subscription and free layers.

2788 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that. I just have one more question with respect to data, and then I’ll turn things over to my colleagues.

2789 So you have asked for strict confidentiality when it comes to data. And I’m wondering, if that’s the case, then how would people be able to tell whether you are acquiring Canadian content or if things change over time?

2790 MS. DIONNE: I probably need to review, just based on that question, what we’ve specifically asked for so that I can answer that correctly. So let me circle back with an answer to that question.

2791 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, that sounds good. And we can also follow up with a request for information on that following the hearing.

2792 MS. DIONNE: Perfect. Thank you.

2793 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

2794 I will turn things over to my colleague Commissioner Paquette. Thank you.

2795 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

2796 Madam Dionne, you mentioned in your intervention that rights are negotiated between ownership parties without DAZN being able to participate. I’m just wondering, can you tell us a bit more about this? Is DAZN often in competition against Canadian media groups to obtain sports programming rights for the Canadian territory? Or do you consider your offer more complementary to the Canadian offer?

2797 MS. DIONNE: I think the true answer would be somewhere in between. I think we’d like the opportunity to negotiate for Canadian‑specific rights that are held within the families that currently exist. In European countries, most rights go to a public tender. That is not the practice in Canada and not the practice across North America for sports rights. So in order to actually have a chance to bid for a rights portfolio, you have to be invited to the table, and that isn’t always the case for all international streaming parties.

2798 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Availability and accessibility to national events or public interest events is a concern for the Commission. And I was wondering, are the broadcast rights important for you or not, because you are an online platform? I was wondering, what’s your position on the model where the broadcasting rights need to remain available to Canadian broadcasters?

2799 MS. DIONNE: The broadcasting rights to specific sporting events?

2800 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes.

2801 MS. DIONNE: Yes, I mean, of course they are important. Anytime you have an exclusive right as a broadcaster, whether as a digital OTT or a linear television broadcast, those rights have value. That’s why rights fees continue to escalate in the sports world and audiences continue to tune in. So yes, rights are important to us. And as they remain more readily available, then there’s more competition for companies like DAZN to compete to be a broadcaster of those rights.

2802 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So I understand that even if you don’t need the broadcasting rights because you’re an online platform, you still need them in order to obtain exclusivity on the content; is that right?

2803 MS. DIONNE: Yes, absolutely. So in order to even display content, we still have to be a rights holder. So we still have to acquire a broadcast right; it is just a broadcast right to distribute across an OTT or digital platform. And those rights are generally ‑‑ they can be separated as a broadcast from a linear service versus digital, or in many instances the right is combined because many of the broadcasters also have a digital or OTT option, like TSN+ or SportsNet+ would be an equivalent.

2804 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you. No more questions.

2805 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much. I think we would just like to turn things back over to you in terms of any concluding remarks or if there’s something that we didn’t get a chance to touch on this morning. Thank you.

2806 MS. DIONNE: I don’t have any, and if my colleagues are happy with our remarks, then I think we are good to go. Thank you very much, everybody.

2807 MR. HASKEY: Thank you for your time.

2808 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to DAZN for participating this morning. We appreciate it.

2809 THE SECRETARY: Thank you very much.

2810 MS. DIONNE: Thank you.

2811 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

2812 I would now ask Youth Media Alliance ‑ Alliance Médias Jeunesse, Epic Story Media inc., and Huminah Huminah Animation Inc. to come to the presentation table.

2813 We will hear each presentation, which will then be followed by questions by the Commissioners to all participants. We will begin with the presentation by Youth Media Alliance ‑ Alliance Médias Jeunesse. S’il vous plait vous presenter et presenter vos collègues et vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

2814 MS. MARTIN: Bonjour. Good morning, everyone. My name is France Martin. I am the executive director of the Youth Media Alliance, which represents broadcasters, producers, and professionals for children content. Thank you for having us today. We are honoured to present to you.

2815 Today I am with our YMA co‑president, Athena Georgaklis. She’s an independent producer, formerly from Corus and Nelvana. Et puis avec Daniel Coutu, membre du conseil d’administration de l’AMJ et fondateur de Productions Prestigo de Gatineau.

2816 We would like to begin by viewing a video. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Présentation vidéo

2817 MS. GEORGAKLIS: Good morning. Thank you, Mrs. Chair, Madame la Présidente, and Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Youth Media Alliance.

2818 Until recently, Canadian children have grown up with programming designed specifically for them by dedicated artists, writers, educators, and performers. A youth‑focused industry of over 33,500 Canadian professionals works to create Canadian stories for Canadian kids. Our beloved Ernie Coombs, who portrayed Mr. Dressup, once said, “You can’t help but respect kids because they’re such wonderful little beings.” Mr. Dressup taught us the magic of make‑believe.

2819 M. COUTU : Mr. Dressup tout comme Fanfreluche d’ailleurs nous ont appris la magie du monde imaginaire. Au fond, ils ont donné à tous les enfants d’une génération la permission d’être eux‑mêmes, d’imaginer un monde de possibilités, ancré dans les valeurs que nous chérissons tant ici au Canada : l’inclusion, l’optimisme, la bienveillance et un sens de l’humour débridé. Nous avons un héritage de contenu qui a vu grandir des générations d’enfants canadiens pour en faire les adultes formidables qu’ils sont aujourd’hui, que nous sommes aujourd’hui pour la plupart.

2820 Les médias jeunesse jouent un rôle essentiel dans le développement puis la croissance des enfants. Ils les aident à apprendre leur langue maternelle, à comprendre leur culture locale et à découvrir d’autres cultures. Ils favorisent l’empathie, le respect de l’autre, ainsi que la diversité culturelle. Ce que nous voyons, entendons et ressentons dans… Je suis désolé. Ça me touche beaucoup. C’est toute ma vie. Bien, ça devient une partie intégrante de notre identité, de notre culture, de notre… Je vais me gérer. Désolé. Ça me… c’est presque fini. Je vais y arriver. De notre culture et d’une façon de traiter les autres à l’âge adulte. C’est tellement important.

2821 MS. GEORGAKLIS: But today we are on the verge of undoing all the wonderful work we’ve accomplished over the last 50 years. If we aren’t careful, we may never create the next Mr. Dressup. Are we prepared to take that risk?

2822 Children under the age of 15 make up more than 15 percent of our population, yet they receive only a fraction of the investment and attention in the Canadian broadcasting system, and when we fail to include children, we are not just neglecting a genre, we are ignoring an entire segment of society, as segment that will grow up and inherit Canada.

2823 We must continue to invest in Canadian kids’ content to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, social and linguistic fabric of the country they are growing up in. If we don’t invest in kids now, we are choosing to neglect the future of our children.

2824 M. COUTU : Oui, parce que les médias jeunesse ne sont pas un luxe. Ce sont des outils fondamentaux pour bâtir une identité nationale, des valeurs sociales et un sentiment d’appartenance. Aujourd’hui, de nombreux enfants canadiens grandissent en regardant du contenu étranger issu de pays aux valeurs, aux histoires, aux langues, aux accents et aux cultures différentes.

2825 Que se passe‑t‑il quand la majorité de nos enfants sont incapables de nommer un seul personnage canadien de leur enfance? Que se passe‑t‑il quand ils n’entendent pas leur langue, ne voient pas leur reflet, ou ne reconnaissent pas leur communauté dans les histoires qu’ils consomment?

2826 MS. GEORGAKLIS: What happens when the majority of our children can’t name a single Canadian character they grew up with? What happens when they don’t hear their language, see their faces or recognize their communities in the stories they consume? We’ll tell you what happens. They lost connection, they lose a shared Canadian identity and they lose trust.

2827 Children’s production statistics are alarming. Children’s television production in Canada dropped by over 41 percent last year. In English‑language markets, it plummeted by 47 percent. Private broadcasters contributed just three percent to kids’ content budgets, nearly nothing. Meanwhile, streamers and commercial platforms only serve kids’ content as long as it makes business sense, and let’s be honest, the business model for children’s content is broken. It’s expensive to make, risky to monetize and no longer supported by ad revenue. But the solution isn’t to walk away. The solution is to treat kids’ content as a social investment, just like public education, health care and public libraries.

2828 We’re not asking for a handout. We’re asking for a policy commitment that ensures streaming platforms which now dominate family viewing, are required to invest meaningfully in Canadian and Indigenous kids’ content. Specifically, we are asking that 15 percent of all Canadian contributions from online streamers and broadcasters be allocated to children’s programming.

2829 M. COUTU : Et si nous ne faisons pas cela, voici la réalité : les enfants grandiront déconnectés de leurs communautés, de leur histoire, et éventuellement des uns des autres.

2830 Nous élèverons une génération qui ne se reconnaît pas dans ses médias et qui ne sait pas qui elle est.

2831 Mais, heureusement, il y a une autre voie.

2832 Nous pouvons choisir d’investir dans les enfants. Nous pouvons continuer à créer le type de contenu qui a façonné des générations de Canadiennes et de Canadiens, des émissions qui nous ont aidés à comprendre ce que ça signifie d’être d’ici, de faire partie de ce pays.

2833 MS. GEORGAKLIS: If we don’t do this, here’s the reality. Kids will grow up disconnected from their communities, their history and one another. We will raise a generation that doesn’t recognize itself in its media and doesn’t know who it is, but we have another choice.

2834 We can invest in kids. We can continue to make the kind of content that has shaped generations of Canadians, the kind of shows that helped us understand what it means to be from this place, to be part of this country.

2835 M. COUTU : Vous savez, les enfants ne sont pas seulement l’avenir. Ils sont le présent. Ce sont les voix que nous devons écouter maintenant, si nous voulons un Canada meilleur demain.

2836 MS. GEORGAKLIS: Kids are not just the future. They are the present, they are the voices we must listen to now if we want a better Canada tomorrow, so let’s not be the generation that gave up on children. Let’s be the one that stood up and said this matters and they matter.

2837 Thank you.

2838 THE SECRETARY: Thank you very much.

2839 We’ll now hear the presentation of Epic Story Media. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues.

Présentation

2840 MR. FAIER: Thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is Ken Faier, and I’m the Co‑CEO with Steve Couture here with me today from Epic Story Media and Epic Storyworlds based in Quebec City. I am in Toronto.

2841 We are a children’s entertainment company with a 360 degree always on approach. I’ve spent 25 years working in this children’s media industry and have executive produced over 1,000 episodes of content.

2842 My first exposure to the kids’ business sand the industry was in 1997 when I launched “KidScreen” magazine as the founding publisher. In launching this trade magazine ‑‑ global trade magazine, I saw firsthand how Canada was at the forefront of the industry globally and in Canada. That’s why we were based in Canada. That’s why the magazine came from here because we had an industry that was significant.

2843 My first job in TV was at Alliance Atlantis and I saw a clip there from Degrassi, which was the first decision I made investing into that show, which launched many Canadian careers and aired around the world and in the U.S. I was very proud of that.

2844 And the shows which I’ve produced have generated thousands of jobs. I haven’t done the calculation, but I’ve worked with many people in the industry, Canadian creators, writers, animators, editors, producers, composers, child development psychologists, voice talent, et cetera. I’ve been able to do this because the system in Canada historically supported kids’ content in a much more significant way. I’ve seen the decline firsthand.

2845 When Teletoon had a 60 percent Canadian content obligation and was working with independent producers, it helped us grow our industry globally to a leadership position. Sadly, we’ve lost that position and are at risk of losing everything.

2846 Today, kids aren’t just watching TV. We know that. They’re on platforms like YouTube, Roblox and digital channels and we’ve made it a priority at Epic to reach them where they are, with safe, age‑appropriate, Canadian content, voices from Canada. But we need a baseline of resources to support innovation in these emerging spaces. I think Canada needs that overall.

2847 Investment into our system helps us to build content that can reach kids where they are, including on TV. Why give up on having them there? There’s no reason to. Without it, we are doomed and that means that kids will not have access to a Canadian voice.

2848 It’s first time at the Commission. I had to ask myself why. Shame on me for not coming before. Sorry.

2849 The reason is that I’ve taken advantage or relied on the hard work of others who have been here before, many of whom have retired and are no longer in our industry, and I worry that there will be less and less voices from us.

2850 So we’re here to fully support Shaw Rocket Fund’s proposed 20 percent CPE allocation to be dedicated to kids and youth and, if it’s a service that does not have kids’ content, then they allocate it to a fund such as the Rocket Fund which we know, has a limited timeline in terms of funding.

2851 Thank you. I’ll pass it to Steve.

2852 M. COUTURE : Notre organisation est est une entreprise véritablement bilingue, avec un leadership issu des deux langues officielles canadiennes — le français à Québec et l’anglais à Toronto — et nos productions proviennent des deux milieux créatifs. Nous ne sommes plus seulement des producteurs de contenu. Nous devons innover sur de multiples plateformes, et la découvrabilité fait désormais partie de nos responsabilités.

2853 Je n’ai pas commencé ma carrière dans l’audiovisuel comme mon partenaire, mais plutôt dans le numérique. J’ai fondé une entreprise de jeux vidéo et d’innovation qui allait devenir le plus grand studio indépendant de production interactive au Canada.

2854 En 2003, l’un de nos premiers projets à fort rayonnement avait été la création de jeux en ligne pour favoriser la découvrabilité de Harry Potter. Bien que plusieurs de nos employés aient trouvé cela stimulant, je trouvais déjà à cette époque un peu décevant de consacrer nos talents à l’exploitation de propriétés étrangères.

2855 La propriété intellectuelle contrôlée financièrement et créativement par des Canadiens est essentielle. Il est essentiel de créer des contenus d’ici qui nous appartiennent et qui rayonnent à l’international.

2856 Avec Ken et Epic, nous avons créé des contenus pour le système traditionnel de diffusion, mais aussi pour d’autres plateformes, afin d’amener nos univers là où se trouve le jeune public — en tirant parti des réseaux sociaux, des plateformes numériques et d’environnements immersifs comme Roblox. Et dans ce domaine, nous excellons. Rien que dans la dernière année, nous avons soutenu trois diffuseurs publics canadiens dans leurs stratégies de découvrabilité sur la plateforme Roblox. Bien que cela contribue à la découvrabilité, ce n’est toutefois pas la solution.

2857 Nos enfants consomment massivement des contenus de courte durée et de faible valeur provenant du monde entier. En partie, c’est parce qu’ils ne trouvent pas — ou ne peuvent tout simplement pas découvrir — des contenus canadiens de qualité.

2858 Nous avons la responsabilité de proposer du contenu qui soit attrayant et qui reflète nos valeurs. Sans des ressources adéquates, notre contenu ne sera pas vu par les jeunes.

2859 Notre entreprise, comme l’ensemble du secteur, est en danger. Et nous avons l’impression que le système laisse tomber les jeunes, au moment précis où le Canada pourrait jouer un rôle de leader mondial.

2860 C’est pourquoi nous ne voyons qu’une seule façon de soutenir notre secteur : lui administrer un électrochoc financier. Nous appuyons donc la position du Fonds Shaw Rocket de donner l’obligation aux télédiffuseurs d’investir 20 pour cent en contenu jeunesse, ou en versant l’équivalent en dollars au Fonds Shaw Rocket afin que nous puissions financer du contenu jeunesse sur toutes les plateformes.

2861 Priorisons notre jeunesse.

2862 THE SECRETARY: Thank you very much.

2863 We’ll now connect to Zoom and we will now hear the presentation of Huminah Huminah Animation Inc.

2864 Please introduce yourself and you may begin.

Présentation

2865 MR. MIMNAGH: Thank you for the opportunity to be here to represent Canadians, my industry and my kids. I value this opportunity.

2866 Why am I here? Well, we need permanent regulation and financial support for Canadian Children’s content production. I support Rocket Fund’s 20 percent CPE suggested commitment to protect children’s content production. I also support their position that if a broadcaster or streamer does not offer children’s content, then that 20 percent must be redirected to a fund similar to Rocket Fund to ensure Canadian children’s content is reachable and available on all platforms.

2867 Why? Because our broadcasting system has failed and it is affecting our kids’ future in being able to call themselves Canadian.

2868 What does it mean when we say, “I am Canadian”? With those words we define our values, beliefs, respect for one another and our diversity. This is the culture of being a Canadian.

2869 This is not just about jobs and our multi‑billion dollar content production and distribution industry. This has far deeper reaching roots. Now, I wrote my initial intervention letter before Trump started talking annexation of Canada. Because of him, now more than ever, we need to act and protect our culture. It is how we define ourselves as a people, as a country, our sovereignty.

2870 My name is Adam Mimnagh. I am based in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. I am an active 20‑plus‑year independent Canadian studio owner and animation producer. Our studio is 100 percent Canadian. It consists of a house full of equity seeking diverse artists, producers and storytellers.

2871 Right at this moment, we are creating content for a very Canadian show, Toopy and Binoo, a show that your kids and grandkids will watch for years to come. I also happen to be a regional independent CRTC licensed national broadcast channel operator.

2872 Along with countless other Canadian producers, it is essential that I underline for you that we are not just producers of content.

2873 We produce and build Canadian culture as the cornerstone building blocks and future of our country because we create content for kids, youth and young families. I create content for our future, for your kids’ future.

2874 What are we talking about here? Why is the importance of protecting our culture even a question? If we lose it, what’s the point? We may as well roll over and let them annex us because in a short time, we’ll have nothing left that defines us.

2875 Allowing foreign national companies to stream and broadcast content into Canada unchecked, unregulated is eroding our culture. It is decimating our industry and eroding how we see and define ourselves.

2876 It is essential to invest the minimum 20 percent CPE towards producing Canadian content for kids and young families as a priority to be broadcast and streamed by Canadian regulated broadcasters and streamers.

2877 You heard me mention we are producing the next season of Toopy and Binoo. You could not find a more Canadian preschool animated series, but the fact that we needed support from four broadcasters, three of them public Canadian broadcasters and one independent private broadcaster, which is Toonavision, and the Shaw Rocket Fund and the Eastlink Fund to finance this series is a stark contrast compared to how things were before the streamers came here.

2878 Previously, one needed just one broadcaster maybe to buy a series in order for us to be able to produce it for Canadians to watch.

2879 Please stop selling off the assets that make us Canadian. Please don’t sell off our culture, don’t sell off what helps me proudly say that I am Canadian.

2880 Thank you.

2881 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Merci beaucoup pour vos soumissions. Merci pour votre passion.

2882 Really appreciate you starting us off with the video and the granular examples that you gave us with Mr. Dressup, some of the initiatives you’re doing with Roblox, so thank you for all of that.

2883 I will things over to my colleague, Commissioner Naidoo, to start the questioning for the Commission.

2884 Thank you.

2885 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I want to say thank you to you for being here and for your presentations and also very heartfelt presentations. We appreciate that. Thank you.

2886 I want to start off with CPE PNI framework. So when it comes to expanding funding opportunities and improving exportability of content, how can producers of Canadian children’s and youth programming benefit from partnerships, in your view, with online streaming platforms?

2887 And then as another part to that question, what framework could the Commission implement to encourage these types of relationships?

2888 MS. GEORGAKLIS: Thank you for that question. It’s actually ‑‑ the partnerships, I think, would really support the actual realization of this content of bringing it to greenlight, which is something that is probably the most difficult it’s ever been.

2889 The 18 years I spent as a broadcaster in commissioning content at a time where we had, you know, advertising revenue or enough viewership to fund kids’ content is gone. We understand that. And the streaming platforms, the ones that are generating so much viewership here in Canada, can help support this opportunity to get to greenlight, to fund content for us. And the partnerships then would allow us, as Canadian IP owners and producers, to expand viewership outside of Canada as well.

2890 And this is something that isn’t foreign to us. We work in partnership with producer ‑‑ with streamers and other broadcasters often, but I think that that would be an essential part of funding content.

2891 Would anyone else like to add?

2892 MR. FAIER: Thank you.

2893 Agree. I think kids’ content producers are great partners. It’s part of our DNA. Kids’ content travels the world very well and our Canadian content has travelled very well.

2894 So we’re very used to partnering with the broadcasters and streamers internationally, but most of those broadcasters and streamers think about only their own service. What we’re trying to do is extend IP so that kids can consumer it in many different ways. And when a child falls in love with a show, it’s not just the show, it’s everything. The 360 comment I made earlier is about the spokes of the wheel of the different places where kids go.

2895 Roblox is a different experience than it is sit back and watching television or streaming it another platform. So the funding is beyond just for that show in greenlight. It’s to also support it and create discoverability, which is critical. And yes, kids have migrated away from TV, but it doesn’t mean they can’t come back, first of all. There’s many countries around the world who are showing that they keep them in their ecosystem, and that ecosystem’s linear, but also their streaming services that they offer like the BBC with their iPlayer and ITVX that has digital platforms.

2896 So for us, funding gives us the tool to be able to have those discussions about the IP, which all of the shows that we’ve produced in the last eight years since launching Epic Story Media, we own all eight ‑‑ no, 12 of the shows that we’ve made. We control the IP and we’re supporting them.

2897 Years later, we’re still supporting those, not just to drive it to ‑‑ and I don’t fully believe that 100 percent of the advertising’s gone away from the kids’ sector. It’s still there.

2898 It may be migrated to other platforms like YouTube, which has really taken a big bite out of the kids’ business. That’s really what has collapsed the industry because they are ‑‑ their growth on the large screen TV is 12 percent, according to Nielsen in the U.S. I don’t know if that’s ‑‑ that translates to Canada. I would imagine it would. So a lot of it’s gone there.

2899 So there’s still advertising that would like to reach kids and family, and I believe the broadcasters still get some. Some channels are non‑commercial like Treehouse, but there are others that are commercial.

2900 Thank you.

2901 M. COUTU : Puis j’aimerais compléter avec l’information suivante. La collaboration avec les partenaires internationaux est hyper importante, mais on ne devrait pas être dépendants des partenaires internationaux pour raconter les histoires qui sont nécessaires et importantes pour les enfants canadiens. Donc, c’est important que le financement soit suffisant pour déclencher nos propres histoires, nos propres émissions puis, évidemment, on aura le plaisir de travailler avec les partenaires internationaux pour faire rayonner ces histoires‑là partout à travers le monde.

2902 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. I’m going to move on.

2903 You touched a little bit about ‑‑ on consumption habits, so I want to get into that.

2904 The 21st century, of course, has seen a huge change in consumption habits across the board and children ‑‑ you know, the habits of children and youth as well. The availability of children and youth programming has shifted, as we’ve seen, from traditional television services to online streaming platforms.

2905 So with that shift, is children’s and youth programming at risk or have consumption habits simply changed? And would you deem it to be more at risk than any other types of programming?

2906 I throw this out to everyone, but I also know the gentleman that’s remote right now hasn’t had a chance ‑‑ didn’t have a chance to get in on the last answer, so maybe we’ll start with you and then we’ll allow other people to jump in.

2907 Thank you.

2908 MR. MIMNAGH: Thank you.

2909 The question was, are they watching content on different platforms and are they at risk. So the answer is both.

2910 They’re at risk because they’re not watching Canadian content. They’re getting content streamed at them from everywhere else. They’re not having the opportunity to watch Canadian content because we’re not having the opportunity to build it and to make it.

2911 That’s my short and sweet answer to that question.

2912 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that.

2913 Did others on the panel want to weigh in on that?

2914 MS. GEORGAKLIS: Yes, thank you.

2915 I would love to just say that public broadcasting is doing the best that they can and they are still producing wonderful shows and commissioning wonderful shows. The lack of viewership is a problem. We know that. We know kids have migrated. We want to be where they are and I think that the fact that they’ve migrated to other platforms is our reality.

2916 Discoverability is the disadvantage here, but what I know for sure is that there are kids and there are parents who want curated content for their kids but they just don’t seem to know how to get it. And unless they lean into the linear broadcast, Canadian linear broadcast, whether it be public or private, they really don’t receive that on platforms.

2917 And I think that’s what we need to focus on as an industry because it is essential. I think it’s important. I think they all would agree, parents and kids alike, that it is important, but we need to help them find that content. We need to be able to make it and to get it in front of them.

2918 M. COUTU : Je vais répondre très clairement à cette question‑là. Le contenu pour enfants est à notre avis le contenu le plus à risque de l’industrie. Les chiffres le démontrent dans les baisses généralisées au niveau des volumes de production, il y a eu des baisses partout.

2919 Et le genre dans lequel il y a eu le plus de diminution, celui qui a fait les frais de ce glissement de terrain de l’industrie, c’est le contenu jeunesse en raison de l’absence des modèles d’affaires que, nous, comme société, on a choisi de faire aussi. On a choisi qu’il n’y ait pas de publicité.

2920 Donc, étant donné des choix de société qu’on a faits, c’est le contenu le plus à risque. C’est le contenu qui mérite d’être appuyé le plus par des obligations.

2921 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Would enhancing discoverability in the online space take care of some of the concerns that you’ve got so that children do have access to Canadian programming where they’re actually watching content?

2922 M. COUTURE : Oui, la découvrabilité, en fait, c’est devenu le travail des producteurs maintenant. On ne fait plus que de l’aspect créatif des contenus. On a la responsabilité de faire de la découvrabilité en partenariat avec les diffuseurs canadiens. On a une responsabilité, nous aussi, d’amener de l’auditoire canadien sur nos contenus.

2923 Alors, oui, c’est super important. C’est important aussi d’être capables de les financer correctement. Parce que, actuellement, ce qu’on investit dans la découvrabilité de nos contenus est moins investi dans le contenu en tant que tel. Donc, il faut avoir des leviers financiers nécessaires pour faire du contenu de grande qualité qui nous représente bien et de travailler sa découvrabilité par les jeunes canadiens et pour son exportation aussi.

2924 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you.

2925 I have a question now just for Youth Media Alliance.

2926 If the Commission were to recognize Canadian children’s and youth programming as, quote/unquote, at risk, what specific measures could be adopted to support the creation of such programming, in your view? And should the approach differ in each language market, including English, French and Indigenous language markets?

2927 I can repeat that, if you need me to.

2928 MS. GEORGAKLIS: Thank you for that.

2929 Can I start by whether there should be a difference in each language market?

2930 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: However you feel is the best approach to the question.

2931 MS. GEORGAKLIS: Thank you. I think the representation across the board is really important, and I think the easiest way to establish obligations from multiple players in the media industry would be to have provided a percentage of financing across all languages.

2932 As an industry, we have had the CMF, the Shaw Rocket Fund, other funds that help distribute that funding appropriately, and broadcasters as well to represent the culturally diversity and language diversity in our country.

2933 Do you have anything to add?

2934 M. COUTURE : Oui, ce que je pourrais dire aussi, c’est que les fonds qui sont en place à l’heure actuelle ont une expertise très pointue des différentes communautés et des différents publics qui sont desservis. Le Fonds des médias du Canada, le Fonds Shaw Rocket et le Bureau de l’écran autochtone ont tous les trois… Puis c’est d’ailleurs la recommandation qu’on a faite dans la soumission, de distribuer, étant donné que la situation est urgente, de distribuer les sous qui pourraient venir d’obligations à ces trois partenaires‑là, justement parce qu’ils ont une connaissance pointue du public, des partenaires, que l’argent pourrait se rendre rapidement à l’écran.

2935 Puis je pense que, de cette façon‑là, on pourrait arriver à des résultats rapides qui tiennent compte de l’ensemble des préoccupations, notamment de la langue, de la géographie, de la diversité, inclusion. Bref, de l’ensemble des autres paramètres qui doivent être tenus en compte dans l’équation.

2936 Est‑ce que ça répond bien à votre question? Oui?

2937 MR. FAIER: If you don’t mind, I wouldn’t mind just adding.

2938 When looking at it, flexibility and incentives have not worked. I mean, the numbers just play out. And we’re really talking about the next few years. If Shaw Rocket Fund will be gone in a year, that is one less funding source. And with group flex not going to kids at various broadcasters and with the cable companies, Rogers and Bell, talking about dropping the kids’ services, then what?

2939 So without obligation, it’s not going to happen, and flexibility and incentives have not in the last ten years. Thank you.

2940 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that.

2941 I’m going to stick with Epic Story Media. I have a question specifically for you.

2942 You indicated support for CMPA’s proposal of creating an Independent Production Expenditure, IPE, requirement.

2943 Why should the Commission focus on implementing a new expenditure requirement to enhance and better support children’s programming instead of other types of programming?

2944 MR. FAIER: Thank you for the question.

2945 I think, ultimately, it’s about looking at ways to ensure that the independent production community is receiving the funding. A lot of the triggers right now happen with broadcasts when it comes to CMF. It’s very difficult to secure that when the private commercial broadcasters are not commissioning.

2946 THX ‑‑ and I worked there ‑‑ is the in the process of being sold, but because the potential of dropping them from Bell is there, they are renegotiating. So, that’s a challenging thing to see.

2947 The mechanisms that are put in place to drive it to independence, as Steve and all of us have said, we as producers, when we look at creating content, we are looking at creating it forever. These are the shows, when you watched that video, that I grew up with, that my daughter grew up with, and that hopefully my grandkids will grow up with, with new content, if it spans the decades.

2948 So, we are looking for mechanisms. You guys have a hard job, there is no doubt about it. We’ve come here to express ‑‑ I’ve lived this for 25 years, and I’ve just seen a steady drop, to the point where would I ever recommend somebody to come into this industry, as an industry, and it’s hard to say yes, because it’s difficult to survive. And we are at the edge of that.

2949 Both Steve and I have committed to staying in this business, but it’s a difficult one to do. Thank you.

2950 COMMISSIONMER NAIDOO: Last question before I hand it over to my colleagues.

2951 You just said here that incentives and flexibility, in your view, don’t work. Does that mean that they can’t work in the future?

2952 Why have they not worked, in your view, and how could they work going forward? And because they haven’t worked in the past, in your view, does that mean that we should not look at that as an option going forward?

2953 MR. FAIER: Thank you for that question.

2954 I think it needs to be both. Without the obligation to start the flexibility, I mean, what we see is a lot of companies, if they don’t have the obligation, first of all, they remove the staff that are even doing it. So, we have no one to even pitch to at the private broadcasters at Corus in particular.

2955 It’s not only about Corus; it’s all services.

2956 But I think a combination of a certain level base obligation and incentives could work. There’s no one easy solution.

2957 COMMISSIOER NAIDOO: So, you are saying that they could work.

2958 MR. FAIER: In combination: obligation and flexibility on top of that.

2959 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Can you just tell us specifically what you would like to see and what you think needs to be done in order for it to work?

2960 MR. FAIER: Well, I think the Rocket Fund’s proposal is an elegant proposal, because it forces monies into the system and then allow the free market to negotiate that. The funds, the CMF, they try to allocate monies to kids, but they struggle to do so. A lot of it is triggered by broadcast.

2961 Only the public broadcasters are ordering right now. TVO, Knowledge, CBC on the English side. They don’t have enough money, CBC. I’d love to see them spend a bit more on kids, as a percentage. That is the future.

2962 I mean, my kids watched CBC when they were growing up. Are watching it now? If they are not watching now, when are they going to watch CBC, etc.?

2963 So, there is no one straight answer to this other than seeing the decline when the group ‑‑ first of all, group flexibility just immediately went to it not being spent on kids. So, that was the painful part. And the reduction again back to talent, 60 percent to 30 percent. And with flex, it just all disappeared in the last ten years. And the numbers bear it out.

2964 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you very much. Oh, sorry, yes, please jump in.

2965 M. COUTURE : Et, sans claires obligations, on ne croit pas que ça va fonctionner. On a besoin d’obligations très claires et formelles pour que ça fonctionne. La flexibilité ou les incentives ne seront pas suffisants. Ça prend des obligations. On ne voit pas autrement.

2966 MS. GEORGAKLIS: And if I can just refer back to we talked about the Shaw Rocket Fund, and we are talking about an obligation ‑‑ because I agree that when the genre protection went away, it was the beginning of the end for the kids’ business. I think we saw a decline immediately.

2967 But what I think is so special about what the Shaw Rocket Fund is suggesting is that across the board, media companies in Canada, whether they operate kids’ channels or not, should be paying into the kids’ system and kids’ content, because they benefit. They benefit from kids’ viewership. They benefit from their wi‑fi, their gaming and all of that. Our big media companies, Bell, Cogeco, Quebecor ‑‑Rogers, excuse me ‑‑ and they benefit from the population, but they are not participating in that content.

2968 And if we are able to sustain an obligation that is permanent and then make sure that that financing, if there isn’t an operating channel in their ecosystem, that financing goes in and helps create Canadian content that they will, once again, benefit from through the other businesses that they run in Canada.

2969 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you very much. I saw a lot of nodding heads, so I think we got some consensus there.

2970 I’m going to hand things back over to the Chair. Those are all my questions. Thank you.

2971 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Puis, moi, je vais céder la parole à notre vice‑présidente de la radioffusion, madame Théberge. Merci.

2972 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci. Merci pour votre participation. Merci pour votre émotion aussi. Ce n’est pas dans n’importe quel processus de consultation publique qu’on a des gens qui parlent avec autant de passion et qui vont au‑delà des considérations strictement mercantiles liées à leur industrie. Alors, je vous remercie pour votre authenticité. Je pense qu’elle est tout à fait à propos.

2973 Je vais faire du pouce peut‑être sur ce que, madame, vous venez de mentionner à l’effet que c’est aussi… il y a un intérêt commercial, pécuniaire dans la programmation pour enfants du point de vue des radiodiffuseurs. Alors, où est le problème? Où est‑ce que ça ne fonctionne pas? Est‑ce que c’est une question de qualité de l’offre de la programmation qui fait en sorte que les radiodiffuseurs ou les plateformes n’y trouvent pas leur compte? J’aimerais un petit peu vous entendre là‑dessus premièrement.

2974 Et j’aimerais comprendre aussi si, au bout du compte, le problème, ce n’est pas tant le niveau de financement, mais la structure du financement, l’équilibre entre, d’une part, l’obligation et l’incitatif. J’aimerais un peu vous entendre là‑dessus.

2975 M^me GEORGAKLIS : Je vais commencer, mais je suis sure que mon collègue ici va être capable de terminer.

2976 La commercialisation vient un peu après la production, le produit final. Il faut financer le produit final pour arriver à une commercialisation qui a de l’allure pour les IP owners. Alors, finalement, pour nous, ce qu’on dit, c’est qu’on ne peut pas avoir une commercialisation si on n’a pas le financement pour produire des séries pour le mener à la distribution internationale. Dans le fond, les années de productions canadiennes qui sont arrivées au commercial, à la distribution internationale ont eu beaucoup de succès financier.

2977 Alors, nous, on sait qu’on a la capacité de le faire. On sait qu’on a la plateforme pour le faire. Mais il faut recommencer ici au Canada ce qu’on a perdu dans les dernières années.

2978 M. COUTU : Oui. Puis je veux juste être certain que j’ai bien compris votre question. Je vais la reformuler puis dites‑moi si c’est la bonne façon de l’interpréter, mais, ce que vous dites, c’est que, étant donné qu’il y a un intérêt pécuniaire pour certaines chaînes peut‑être privées d’investir dans la télé jeunesse, il est où le problème? .

2979 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Um‑hum.

2980 M. COUTU : Bien, le problème, en fait, c’est que c’est un modèle d’affaires à moyen et long terme. Et plusieurs de ces chaînes‑là ont des comptes rendus à faire à leurs actionnaires à très, très et court terme. Donc, l’idée, c’est que, comme l’entièreté de l’industrie se contracte à l’heure actuelle, bien, là, on cherche des façons d’investir à la bonne place qui vont rapporter rapidement.

2981 L’investissement en contenu jeunesse, parce que ce n’est pas une dépense, c’est un investissement, c’est quelque chose sur le moyen et le long termes. Et, oui, si on le fait pour les Canadiennes puis les Canadiennes, on va pouvoir prendre ce contenu‑là parce qu’il va être financé pour nos enfants d’ici et le faire rayonner à l’international.

2982 Mais, dans le système actuel, dans les modèles d’affaires actuels des télédiffuseurs privés, malheureusement, ce n’est pas payant. Donc, on ne le fait pas. Puis c’est vraiment une discussion de société, rendu là, de dire : est‑ce que c’est la part de tout le monde d’investir ça? Parce que les habitudes de consommation télévisuelles ou de contenu audiovisuel numérique se bâtissent dès le jeune âge. Puis je pense que c’est excellent pour les plateformes privées aussi de bâtir un attachement à leur marque, de bâtir des liens avec les familles canadiennes puis avec les gens qui, éventuellement, une fois rendus, vont devenir des adeptes, des consommateurs, des gens qui seront au rendez‑vous pour écouter les contenus.

2983 Donc, voilà. Sans ceinture de sécurité… En fait, c’est un peu comme ça que je vois le CRTC, moi. Vous êtes une ceinture de sécurité importante pour que le contenu puisse se faire et continuer d’exister.

2984 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci.

2985 M. COUTURE : En fait, il y a aussi une réalité pour les télédiffuseurs. Les moments où on diffuse de la jeunesse, on ne peut pas y présenter de publicité, du moins ciblée pour l’auditoire au Québec. Et ce n’est pas les moments où la télédiffusion est la plus payante.

2986 Et, mêlé à ça, nous, comme producteurs indépendants, on est arrivés à pivoter assez rapidement et d’adresser les nouvelles plateformes et créer de la découvrabilité autour de nos contenus. Les plus grands groupes médias, évidemment, ne vont pas se tourner de bord aussi rapidement que nous autres.

2987 Nous, on y voit une opportunité, justement, de faire des contenus qui peuvent s’exporter, qui peuvent être vus par les enfants pendant que de plus grandes organisations vont peiner à se tourner aussi rapidement qu’on peut le faire.

2988 Alors, ça reste un modèle qui est peut‑être plus difficile pour de grandes organisations au privé actuellement. Et, comme Daniel le disait, sur le court terme, ce ne sont probablement pas les meilleurs investissements pour des entreprises publiques. Mais, comme entreprises qui possèdent la propriété intellectuelle et qui regardent sur le long terme, ça reste des modèles qui sont intéressants.

2989 Et il y a moyen d’aller chercher ce public‑là. En fait, créer de belles histoires, ça marche encore. Ça marche toujours. L’audiovisuel permet ça. Moi, là, qui est passé du jeu vidéo à l’audiovisuel, raconter de belles histoires, ça reste encore la façon d’aller accrocher des jeunes et puis de leur raconter quelque chose qui est pertinent.

2990 M^me GEORGAKLIS : Et pour arriver à commercialiser quelque chose, il nous faut plusieurs épisodes. On est au point maintenant où on ne peut même pas financer 13 épisodes pour une série jeunesse. Impossible de monétiser ça s’il n’y a pas une demande de plus d’épisodes, qui est très difficile à financer. On a vu le succès de la commercialisation de programmes jeunesse canadiens avec Caillou, avec Franklin, Toupie et Binou, plein de séries qui ont traversé le monde. Et on a déjà prouvé qu’on peut le faire.

2991 M. COUTU : Puis on est très forts dans les contenus éducatifs aussi. Moi, je regarde les plateformes comme Idéllo, Télé‑Québec en classe, Curio.ca qui… Puis les télédiffuseurs publics créent des contenus éducatifs, mais j’avais une rencontre l’année dernière avec une diffuseure en Corée du Sud qui trippait sur le côté éducatif de notre contenu, qui reconnaissait sa valeur, sa grande valeur aussi. Donc, il faut vraiment travailler ensemble pour arriver à créer du contenu. Mais, malheureusement, en ce moment, le contenu, on peine à le déclencher pour arriver à le créer, finalement, à le financer.

2992 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci beaucoup.

2993 I just want to check with our colleague on the screen whether he wants to jump in or add something to this conversation.

2994 MR. MIMNAGH: Thank you. I think my colleagues have succinctly and eloquently said everything.

2995 I will add that one of the questions you posed was: where is it broken? It is broken in our financing. It’s broken in the triggers. The broadcasters are not spending money, and because they’re not spending money or able to, we’re not able to produce the content to reach the Canadians, to reach our international markets.

2996 Our industry could be a very lucrative market. It used to be. It used to be one of our major exportable products out of the country. It’s a shadow of its former self.

2997 Thank you. That’s all I need to add.

2998 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Maybe just one last question before I turn things back to the Chair.

2999 You spoke about the importance of partnership and working together to be able to support this particular part of the industry. When we talk about partnership, we often talk of partnerships with either domestic broadcasters or with international platforms, and I certainly understand why this is important.

3000 I am thinking about the other domestic partnerships, and you mentioned educational content. So I would be interested to know how is that going, partnerships with provincial and territorial ministries of education, with community televisions, community radio? We know the role that community radio and TV, in particular, plays within remote locations for indigenous children.

3001 I would be interested to get your sense as to whether there’s a partnership that already exists, there’s one that needs to be built, it’s one that needs to be strengthened, some of the obstacles, and at the end ‑‑ because to my knowledge, we don’t have any intervenors coming from provincial educational departments in this particular hearing.

3002 So throwing back to you, is this an interesting piece? Is this somewhere where you are actually already very active, very involved? And what could be done, perhaps, to facilitate those particular partnerships?

3003 That’s my last question. Thank you.

3004 MR. FAIER: Thank you for that question. I love the lateral thinking, because I’ve grown up getting better and better at lateral thinking. Always thinking how are we going to finance this and who can we partner with?

3005 I will use an example. We do work a lot with TV Ontario, a lot of us do. They are funded by the Department of Education in Ontario, and it’s an awesome service. It has great content, and they are active every year in commissioning content.

3006 We have one show that we’ve produced with them that is teaching coding to kids before they can read. It’s called Mia & Codie. It’s a beautiful series, and we financed two seasons over the last two years with TVO. Wonderful.

3007 We launched on PBS. The Learning System is launching into schools next year, or this fall actually. So, absolutely, the educational departments.

3008 And then in the U.S., of course, we heard of funding going away from PBS. Super sad to hear that. And the Ready‑to‑Learn, a lot of shows on PBS have been produced with Canada’s partnerships.

3009 So, it’s definitely interesting.

3010 Saskatchewan, SCN, I believe it was called, they were very active in kids for a while, have not been as much lately. We would love to see more of the provincial education departments.

3011 Audio is interesting. Podcasting is growing. We haven’t done any ourselves yet, but it’s definitely one we are exploring. We’ve expanded into Roblox, and we do mobile games as well. And we launched a toy company this year.

3012 I hope our toy company will produce in the content that we’re producing, or toys for the content we’re producing, as opposed to licensing foreign properties, which we also do. I don’t want to lose the opportunity to create the new, because that I think is the most important part. Kids are always curious for the new. They are also curious for the old, and the old is a show I produced in 2010. We are still working on that show. We launched a Roblox game for it. So, it is a long‑term, as Daniel said.

3013 And partnerships in many different ways. Right after this, I’m dashing to the airport to go to the Licensing Show in Los Vegas, which started today ‑‑ and I felt it was important to be here ‑‑ to go look for partnerships for our IP, because that’s how you reach kids.

3014 And KidScreen Magazine, when we launched it the tagline was about reaching children through entertainment, and educational content is included in that.

3015 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Can I just do a follow‑up question just because I want to understand the nature of those partnerships?

3016 For example, provincial‑territorial education ministries, do they typically include a distribution agreement whereby your content is shown in classrooms?

3017 I’m just thinking about where do we start to build an audience so that the content goes where the audience is rather than trying to find the audience and pull it, to tie it back to where the content lives.

3018 MR. FAIER: Wonderful question. And yes, Mia & Codie, the project I’m talking about through TVO, which funding is coming from the educational department, we have talked to their educational teams.

3019 Content was built to be used in classrooms by teachers. And the same in the U.S. with PBS, where we play on PBS stations. There’s curriculum materials available for local stations to do it.

3020 Should we be doing more of that? Yes. TVO has an infrastructure in place to do all of that.

3021 Each of the provinces, I don’t know if Manitoba, if Saskatchewan, Alberta has a similarly funded content regime to reach classrooms. But we do have a distributor who sells to libraries and classrooms, who sells our content, and they go district to district to reach kids, if it’s not through TVO or Knowledge Network in Vancouver, which is also a wonderful supporter.

3022 So, yes, I do think that that’s a great idea. It requires a lot of heavy lifting to get there to see that it’s working, and the right content for it and the right plan behind it to penetrate those places and provide things that teachers can use. It’s a great audience. They are there, and using our Canadian content produced shows to deliver that education. Amazing. TFO as well, and Télé‑Québec. So these are already public channels that are doing a lot of that.

3023 M. COUTU : Créer du contenu éducatif, c’est hyper pertinent. C’est la raison pour laquelle les télédiffuseurs publics le font pour la plupart. Puis, comme Adam le disait plus tôt, quand on a besoin de quatre, cinq, six partenaires pour déclencher une série éducative qui nous tient à cœur, c’est là qu’il y a un enjeu puis c’est là qu’on comprend que le financement n’est pas suffisant.

3024 Pour rejoindre la francophonie en milieu minoritaire, le contenu éducatif est un des meilleurs outils. TFO fait un travail incroyable pour rejoindre la francophonie en milieu minoritaire quand ils produisent du contenu. Mais on doit toujours, lorsqu’on dépose une idée, avoir deux, trois, quatre, cinq partenaires. Donc, souvent, ça ralentit les projets, ça fait en sorte qu’il y a moins de projets qui se déclenchent. Puis, au final, les gens qui y perdent au change, ce sont les enfants. Voilà.

3025 MR. FAIER: If I could just add, once ‑‑

3026 M. COUTU : Ça soulève les passions, cette question.

3027 MR. FAIER: Once produced and finding partners, a successful kids’ property can have a thousand partners internationally, hundreds of licensees. I mean, PAW Patrol is a Canadian show produced by a Canadian company. Spin Master is one of the biggest IP that’s ever been built in the kids’ business. Incredible success.

3028 But getting there and the educational content sometimes less commercial, and it needs more domestic partners. So, the whole industry ‑‑ and we all are friendly competitors, but also potential partners. That’s the beauty of the children’s industry.

3029 I just wanted to say that.

3030 MS. GEORGAKLIS: And I just want to make sure that we don’t forget that we work very closely with the Black Screen Office, Indigenous Screen Office, Disability Screen Office. APTN, a wonderful broadcaster, reaches so many communities.

3031 The broadcasters specifically but the screen offices support a lot of our creative contributions and allow us to work within the parameters that we need to work, provide us the guidance.

3032 And I would be remiss if I didn’t also mention the CBC’s regional access. So working with CBC kids and their regional access is really important as well.

3033 The public broadcasters have the infrastructure and allow independent producers to reach as many communities as possible through the obligation.

3034 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci beaucoup. C’est tout.

3035 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much. We have covered quite a bit of ground this morning.

3036 Perhaps we could turn things back over to you, if there’s something that we didn’t get a chance to discuss or just something that you would like to leave us with. Thank you.

3037 MS. GEORGAKLIS: I think we have said many, many things and I just want to come back to our request, and that we urge the CRTC to give explicit recognition to youth production and to take concrete steps in establishing a permanent obligation to support this vital section of our culture.

3038 M. COUTU : Puis j’oserais ajouter qu’il y a une étude récente qui a été menée par la Chaire UNESCO en prévention de la radicalisation et de l’extrémisme violent qui a évalué l’impact de différentes plateformes d’information jeunesse notamment.

3039 Puis les résultats montrent que les contenus médiatiques consommés par les jeunes alimentent leurs interactions sociales, contribuent à la construction de leur rapport à l’information, à la confiance envers certaines sources et à la manière dont ils partagent et discutent des enjeux de société dans leur environnement familial et scolaire. Et, ça, c’est le genre de société dans laquelle on a le goût de vivre.

3040 Merci.

3041 THE CHAIRPERSON: To our presenter on screen?

3042 MS. GEORGAKLIS: Do you have anything to add, Adam?

3043 MR. MIMNAGH: I didn’t hear it. My screen blipped.

3044 No, I have nothing else to add. Everyone has been fantastic in what they’ve said already.

3045 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much.

3046 Thank you for being here with us today. I know that some of you travelled to be with us, and we really appreciate your submissions.

3047 Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

3048 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now take a ten‑minute break and be back at 10:20.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 14

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 28

3049 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentation of Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

3050 Please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

3051 MR. WHITE: Good morning, Commissioners and the unsung heroes of CRTC proceedings, which is the staff, security, court reporting, translation.

3052 We are here on behalf of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a not‑for‑profit advocacy group that for decades has fought for better outcomes for all Canadians and in particular vulnerable Canadians in sectors like communications, privacy, energy, transportation, and financial services. At Public Interest, we fight for that.

3053 I am Geoffrey White, Executive Director and General Counsel. To my right, in from Ajax, Ontario, is Tahira Dawood, PIAC’s staff lawyer, who has been with PIAC since 2018 and this is Tahira’s first actual appearance be the Commission; and to Tahira’s right is Aya Alshahwany, PIAC’s Public Interest Articling Fellow, who will be called to the Bar of Ontario in a matter of weeks.

3054 Now, check against delivery. I can’t help but react to what I heard this morning. First of all, I’d like to say I still hope it means something that people show up to these hearings. Tahira is in Ajax, we saw a lot of panelists in on behalf of Youth Media Alliance and I believe it was EPIC, coming in, and I think that says a lot, to see the emotion and the passion on display, and I was very struck by the panel of youth programmers, and I contrast that to DAZN, which didn’t show up and basically is telling you, ‘Don’t touch us. We’re so special in our business model, so complicated ‑‑ don’t touch us,’ and that you have the good‑natured people on behalf of children’s programming asking for some support.

3055 Now, I guess I could sit here and say I also want some support. The public interest groups are struggling right now and we don’t do this for money, but that’s not what today is about.

3056 I will just say one more point. It’s just so unfortunate and shameful that so many people take the time to show up at these hearings, and yet we don’t have the benefit of hearing from Netflix taking the time to show up to these hearings, and it really is shameful. So, back to my remarks ‑‑ and our remarks.

3057 When it comes to the matters at hand, we have based our recommendations to you on what we refer to as public interest principles of broadcasting, namely: access; affordability; programming diversity; competition and choice; and accountability.

3058 And today we have four points for you. We say, in case you have not heard it enough, Canadian content remains a vital, relevant policy objective. Second, we recommend that the definition of ‘Canadian programming’ should promote diversity; be flexible, simple and people‑centred; and should not have a ‘cultural elements’ aspect to it. Third, we recommend enhancing discoverability requirements; and fourth, regarding the billions of dollars questions before you about expenditures, we say a modernized CPE framework must and has to include foreign streamers.

3059 MS. DAWOOD: On the subject of Canadian content, the record shows that Canadians want, and we say it remains in the public interest to support and promote, Canadian programming that not only fosters Canada’s diverse and multicultural identity, but allows Canadians to narrate their own stories and perspectives.

3060 We recommend the points system continue to be used to identify Canadian content, subject to three considerations. One, it should be flexible enough to allow for diverse Canadian content to be recognized as Canadian, and one which encourages the creation of new content. Two, it should promote equity, diversity and inclusion; and three, its application is easy to understand and follow, and is as transparent as possible.

3061 MS. ALSHAHWANY: With regard to the proposal to include ‘cultural elements’ as part of the assessment criteria, we recommend strongly against that. Identifying and including a specific cultural element or a series of elements in a truly objective manner will be very difficult and will also risk excluding programming that reflects different Canadian communities and groups’ views, and values, including those of equity‑deserving groups. Thus, fixating on specific cultural elements may undermine rather than promote Canada’s diversity, which contradicts the Broadcasting Act’s values of multiculturalism and inclusion in broadcasting.

3062 So, in regard to the example in the UK which was mentioned in a couple submissions, the cultural elements criteria in the UK in their test is reviewed and assessed by a special institution that determines whether the proposed cultural elements within the content are essentially ‘British enough’ to be considered British content. We view that a Canadian application of this approach, or any other cultural elements test, where a small group of people are attempting to objectively decide what is and who is culturally Canadian as being highly problematic.

3063 Canadian content and its criteria thus should remain focussed on Canadian people being employed in key creative positions, from diverse groups and communities, and this, in our view, is the most objective and practical way to measure how ‘Canadian’ a project is.

3064 Importantly, taking this ‘people‑first’ approach also prevents production companies from tokenizing ‘Canadian culture’ through implementing stereotypical Canadian themes or characters in productions without Canadian people being able to derive the direct benefit from that representation through creative control and input. So, for example, an American portrayal of how a Canadian character would speak or look like or behave, for example, cannot be considered Canadian content. It is a representation of the American cultural view of what Canadians are like. At the end of the day, it will be Canadian people, including Canadian Citizens and Permanent Residents of Canada, who will make up both Canadian content and Canadian culture as a whole.

3065 MS. DAWOOD: Regarding discoverability, the Commission’s Public Opinion Research related to this proceeding found that the majority of the survey respondents ‑‑ 60 percent ‑‑ think that they can identify Canadian programming when looking for something to watch on cable, satellite, or online streaming services. This is unlikely to be the case for all age demographics, and as well as unlikely to be the case when more foreign content is produced, promoted, and available to watch on different platforms. We recommend a minimum threshold should be considered for discoverability.

3066 We also recommend the Commission should set clear discoverability standards to apply. In the absence of regulatory support, this objective is unlikely to be achieved. This risks Canadian content being drowned by foreign content.

3067 On the subject of CPEs and PNIs, the modernized broadcasting system must retain Canadian programming expenditure requirements and provide for equitable CPE requirements for all different broadcasting undertakings. CPE requirements should be imposed on both online and traditional undertakings that have 25 million dollars or more in annual Canadian gross broadcasting revenue, either individually or as a part of a group.

3068 We recommend the Commission impose equal obligations, at least as far as feasible, on all broadcasters subject to this regime to ensure that the resulting policy remains sustainable, fair and practical. No exclusions should be provided to online undertakings affiliated with a traditional Canadian broadcasting group that earns above 25 million dollars.

3069 The Commission should also retain PNI spending requirements, which should only be removed or reduced if the Commission has evidence that shows that these programs would still be made without that spending requirement.

3070 MR. WHITE: So, those are our four points. It’s not easy to tackle big issues like how to modernize an antiquated and overgrown regulatory system in five minutes, but that in a way is our point. At the end of this, although it feels like the Commission is being asked to be all things to all people, the task is actually to make sure that Canadian ‑‑ and yes, foreign programmers, if they want to be a part of our system ‑‑ respect and reflect that Canada is not a monolith.

3071 And I will add to that to say that it’s an absolute imperative that the foreign streamers pitch in.

3072 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre for sharing your perspectives with us, not just in this proceeding but in a variety of proceedings that the CRTC has. We appreciate you reacting on the fly to what we heard this morning, ‘Check against delivery.’ So, thank you very much for sharing that with us.

3073 I will turn things over to our Vice‑Chair of Telecommunications, Vice‑Chair Scott.

3074 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Panel.

3075 I will start where you started, because you have emphasized putting Canadians at the centre of the CanCon discussion, but you’ve pretty strongly opposed including cultural elements. All other things being equal, wouldn’t Canadians consider a miniseries about Wilfred Laurier more Canadian than one about Thomas Jefferson?

3076 MS. ALSHAHWANY: I can answer that. I think it would really be a ‘depend’ situation. That is an interesting hypothetical, where an American company, let’s say, would make a movie or something about Wilfred Laurier without Canadians. I can’t really imagine that happening, but it’s a matter of having enough Canadians be part of it and having a sense of creative control and actually deriving the benefit.

3077 I’m thinking of a specific ‑‑ like, let’s say Netflix makes a movie about Justin Bieber without any Canadians partaking, because Justin Bieber is an international icon. So, having that and using that to say, ‘Well, we made a documentary about a Canadian. This is CanCon now.’ ‑‑ I would have a really hard time digesting that as a Canadian to say, ‘Well, this is a reflection of my culture.’

3078 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: In your example, that was a bit of a singular test, but what about as one point in a multipoint system? Does that sit a little bit better with you than having it as a kind of a singular determinant?

3079 MS. ALSHAHWANY: I think it would really depend. I would still find that, if it was part of the test, it would just introduce kind of like a can of worms, like opening it up to other loopholes, and then, instead of having the company get an extra point for making a movie about Justin Bieber and that being CanCon, we would probably benefit more as Canadians to see a Canadian fill another role in that production and having that be the source of that extra point. That would just directly benefit Canadians a little bit more. So, I would have a hard time with that, too.

3080 MR. WHITE: There are two animating concerns with our recommendation that you do not the cultural elements test.

3081 One is that the Act is very clearly an instrument of industrial policy which has employment objectives, ensuring that Canadians are part of the system, part of the production.

3082 And the second concern, which is ‑‑ I don’t want to say more philosophical; it’s more of an emotional concern, and a concern of paternalism and Canadian culture and Canadian content being put in from a foreign entity. It’s just not linked to our national identity, and that’s the linkage we’re seeking.

3083 And like my colleague, Ms. Alshahwany, said, it opens up a bit of a can of worms. We think the current system is working quite well, and it’s anchored in that those industrial policy objectives and that natural linkage between having Canadians depict their own stories without it being paternalistically imposed by foreign personalities, if I can put it that way.

3084 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. Thank you for that.

3085 My next question is also about the points system, and again, life is rarely this tidy, but just as a heuristic, should we be striving for a smaller number of productions ‑‑ or investment in a smaller number of productions with a higher concentration of Canadian talent? Or is there a public benefit in diluting the test a little bit in hopes of kind of spreading it across more?

3086 Would we rather have lots of productions with 50 percent Canadian participation, or should we be focussing on 100 percent Canadian participation even if that means a smaller number of productions?

3087 MR. WHITE: I think with that you are squarely engaging in industrial policy, and really setting almost like a command and control broadcasting system, and I don’t think that’s the spirit of the Broadcasting Act. I think the spirit of the Broadcasting Act is that Canada, in all of its polycentric intersectional diversity, gets reflected back, and that you set the conditions so that that diversity is reflected back.

3088 And that’s where you engage in questions about the financial support, the contribution, the ‘shall contribute’, the ‘shall equitably contribute’, and that’s the tension I saw this morning between DAZN saying, ‘Hands off. We have our business model so complicated we can’t even figure it out and we can’t pay in.’ Sure they can. They make a lot of money. They escape the question ‑‑ and I know you’re going to ask it, but they escape the question about how much ‑‑ what are you actually getting, and what are you doing in Canada? How much money are you making?

3089 There is money there, and what I from saw the panel of youth programmers is, children are important, they’re named in the Broadcasting Act, educational content is named in the Broadcasting Act. You mandate a certain portion. It goes to Shaw Rocket Fund. That ends up with the productions and the partnerships, et cetera. So, you’re not saying, ‘This is the amount we want to see ‑‑ less but higher quality.’ You just set the conditions where the funding exists, the tradeoffs happen, the co‑subsidies, and then you get the content. And then the market can kick in and deliver that outcome.

3090 Go ahead, Tahira.

3091 MS. DAWOOD: Yeah, just to respond to the specific question from Vice‑Commissioner Adam Scott, I hope I’m getting the designation right ‑‑ yes? Okay, great.

3092 Yeah, I just wanted to say, I think even if the Commission did plan to possibly reduce the number of productions and have more Canadians concentrate within that, I think it’s challenging for the Commission to come up with that. And if the Commission does take that approach, in my opinion, it is stepping backwards rather than forward, because when we are modernizing the broadcasting system, we are trying to grow it; we’re not trying to limit it, and if you limit it by saying, ‘Okay, yeah, we should only have 100 independent broadcasting companies or production companies, and we should employ only Canadians within that,’ I think it is an approach which is going to limit growth in the future rather than provide for new talent to come, because then, you know, everybody is competing to try to get into those 100 or 50 production companies that the Commission has allowed.

3093 So, I just think it is a step backwards rather than forward. Thank you.

3094 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. And specifically, what about a construction whereby we set a certain threshold to qualify as Canadian, but above and beyond that threshold we give additional incentive for those productions that have even greater Canadian content? So, kind of a sliding scale within the point system?

3095 MS. DAWOOD: I guess we could consider a sliding scale in the point system, as long as it leads to more innovative content, and more content to be encouraged, and more Canadian creatives entering into the industry. Yeah. What I think from a public interest perspective matters is that more Canadian creatives are getting into the industry, more employment is there, more jobs are there, more ‑‑ more Canadian programs are being produced for more Canadians to be able to watch those programs. Yeah.

3096 MR. WHITE: And that’s consistent with what we’ve said in our written submission, which is, more Canadian, more supports. And that is fundamentally the goal here, of this hearing ‑‑ finding the right balance, and what’s that right balance with the foreign streamers?

3097 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you. I want to turn now to types of productions, either the PNI or the programming at risk conversation. So, in your written submission you made the case that certain categories of programming likely wouldn’t get made if the PNI requirement was lifted. Do you have supporting evidence for that argument? Or what’s the case there?

3098 MS. DAWOOD: I think our case was that we don’t have evidence to show that the programs will be made if you don’t have these requirements in place, and I think you will possibly hear from independent production companies like the Canadian Media Producers Association, and maybe the Directors Guild of Canada would have evidence to support that. To the best of my understanding, a certain portion of PNI, which is, I think, 75 percent, goes to them for them to be able to produce these programs, and if they don’t have that spending quota, it’s going to affect the kind of programs they are able to produce.

3099 So, what our position is ‑‑ our position is very simple on this, that we need to have evidence to show that these programs are still going to be made if these spending requirements are not put in place, and I think CMPA also asked for evidence to show that, if this PNI requirement is going to be removed, what is it going to be replaced with? So, I think we are asking the Commission to have the evidence before they come to a decision that PNI spending should be reduced or eliminated.

3100 MR. WHITE: Let’s put on our telecommunications hats for a minute, Vice‑Chair of Telecommunications Scott. We’re arguing for a forbearance test. We don’t know if you have the evidence. We believe ‑‑ subject to what the independent producers say, we have a belief that this will not be produced. So, what we’re asking the Commission to do is, will the market deliver PNI? If not, it needs to be maintained. So, that’s the task that we’re putting back to you.

3101 MS. DAWOOD: And just to add to that, sorry, I know in our submission when we were doing the initial work, what we found was that the PNI criteria and definition was laid out a really long time ago. And in these changing times, when we are reviewing so many other criteria, it is important that we also review if the definition of PNI still makes sense. The categories of program that are included within that, do they need to be reviewed? What should be included in that? That would also possibly help the Commission in determining the importance of PNI and whether it matters to allocate funding to it or not. Thank you.

3102 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks. Yeah, a related question that I’ve been really keen to ask PIAC specifically: does popular viewership play some role in informing us about the types of content Canadians want to watch? And should that be affecting our decision‑making? I’m worried, like the nature of the question is around the concerns that CRTC is telling people what they should watch. You know, it’s important for us that this type of programming be made. And often the type of programming we’re pointing to is programming that’s not economically viable by virtue of not having a large audience. Is that us appropriately addressing a market failure? Or is that us inappropriately telling Canadians the types of things they should be watching?

3103 MR. WHITE: It is social engineering for sure. But that is what the Broadcasting Act is directing the Commission to do. I do not see in the policy objectives much reference to market forces ruling the way the system is regulated, whereas I see it all the time in the Telecom Act and the policy directions there. It is to address market failure. The Broadcasting Act is to make sure the polycentric, intersectional, diverse communities of Canada can have their perspectives and their histories and their current realities reflected to them and also in news and things like that. So there’s no popularity contest in the Broadcasting Act.

3104 And viewership is great, and Canadian success stories are great. And I know Professor Berkowitz is arguing that your focus really needs to be turbo‑charging our system so that we can go out to the world and really be a powerhouse, independent of foreign streamers, which I’m sympathetic to. But your number one anchor is Canadians and the more vulnerable Canadians. The Broadcasting Act isn’t about majority rules and popularity contests. It’s about the underrepresented people. It’s all over section 3. And so that’s what this is about.

3105 Certainly, we could celebrate our successes. Certainly, there are things that will bring us together as a nation. But it’s the underrepresented, minority, vulnerable people that you need to be thinking about. And that’s where the social engineering comes in and the financial supports, taking from those who can pay and offsetting it and providing it to those who engage in socially valuable programming like children’s programming, for example.

3106 MS. ALSHAHWANY: If I could just add another comment here, I think it’s not necessarily about telling people what to watch. It’s about making it possible to watch certain things. And we know of a lot of very big Canadian successes. And it’s very similar ‑‑ I’m thinking off the top of my head, like, Workin’ Moms, Schitt’s Creek. They’re like covering the front page of Netflix, and I don’t think that’s just because I’m in Canada that I’m seeing them that way.

3107 I think, reflecting on what the youth media advocates were saying earlier, it’s about getting the content made first is step one. And then, because the content is good, because we have a good industry here, it does have international popularity and success. Paw Patrol, I did not know that was Canadian until this morning, shamefully. But I can’t believe the power of Paw Patrol, and that is Canadian media that was just produced here. And it’s getting it over that starting line that I think is the big challenge, and that’s kind of what is really at issue.

3108 MS. DAWOOD: Yeah, I’ll just briefly add to what Aya just mentioned is also about, you know, consumer choice, is giving Canadians the choice. If you don’t give Canadian artists and Canadian creatives the resources, and you know, particularly with respect to PNI that we were talking about earlier, if you take away the PNI spending right now, and we don’t have evidence that these programs are going to be made, it will be very hard or at least harder for the Commission to introduce it at a later stage in some other form.

3109 So it is important that the Commission, you know, provides the resources to Canadians at this proceeding and within this whole hearing that they are able to make the programs, they are able to give Canadians the choice. Whether the Canadians watch it and they’re popular or not is on Canadians. And then the Commission could assess it at a later date. But it is important that the choice is given to Canadians at this point of time.

3110 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, those are my questions.

3111 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much. Let’s go to our colleague Commissioner Paquette.

3112 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hello. Regarding the CPE requirements, you suggest equal obligations between the broadcasters and the online services. Do you have any suggestion on the level of contribution that should be imposed on the online services? And can you provide details on what the Commission should consider when imposing equitable CPE thresholds?

3113 MS. DAWOOD: Yes. I will just address that briefly. Before we go into the CPE, you know, contributions and what the specific numbers should be, I would like to just state two things. There are competing considerations at place when it comes to CPE expenditure requirements or basically just Canadian programming expenditure requirements is that at one point we have traditional broadcasters who are trying to reduce maybe not just their CPE obligations but their other regulatory obligations because they want to have more flexibility to have innovative programs and stuff. And so from a public interest perspective, we are concerned that the traditional broadcasters are reducing or asking for reduced regulatory obligations. How does it affect the broadcasting market?

3114 On the other hand, we have these foreign streamers who are asking that, oh, no obligations should be imposed on them. And imposing a 30 per cent or 40 per cent CPE requirement on foreign streamers can be risky because it is possible that they could reduce their investments in Canadian content or basically even exit the market. For some of the smaller ones, they might even exit the market if they think Canada is not, you know, a suitable business model for them. So those are the competing considerations that have to be taken into account.

3115 I know that a lot of reference was made by groups like MPA on, you know, like these foreign streamers should be making practical use of the resources or practical use of Canadian human resources and creatives. But the part of I think section 3(1)(f.1) also mentions that they have to make ‑‑ shall contribute in an equitable manner to the Canadian programming.

3116 So I think it is important when it comes to CPE programming requirements that a fair and equitable scale is set for both foreign streamers as well as traditional broadcasters. We don’t want to disadvantage one group over another or place the regulatory burden on just one group. We want the burden to be shared. As far as possible, it should be equal burden, but I know it’s going to be harder to implement that, and there’s going to be challenges in coming up with equal numbers. But our perspective is that it should be a fair and equitable burden on both of them.

3117 With respect to the numbers, we’re not in a position to be able to provide numbers unless my colleagues want to add anything else to it. But on principle, we just want it to be fair and equitable. Thank you.

3118 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you. The MPA suggests that Canadian online services should also have some CPE obligations. Do you agree with this position? And should Canadian and foreign online services have the same requirements? How would you calibrate the obligation of both?

3119 MS. DAWOOD: Yeah, just to be clear, are you asking that the Canadian online services should also be obligated with the Canadian programming requirements as well as ‑‑ yes, yes.

3120 So our position is that Canadian online streaming platforms, even if they’re affiliated with traditional Canadian platforms, they should be required to contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system because from our understanding is that we support a threshold of 25 million or more in broadcasting revenues. And so if these online undertakings are making 25 million or more in revenue, even though they’re affiliated with Canadian traditional broadcasters, they should still be required to contribute. Because like I was mentioning earlier, it should be a fair and equitable burden. Then you’re basically looking at possible challenges in the future if these category of online streaming streamers are excluded from the CPE requirements.

3121 And I think CMPA in their submission also mentioned something about we’re looking at a multiplatform structure in the broadcasting market. The linear TV and the online service are two distinct services. And they both are benefiting from the system. And if they both are benefiting from the system and they are making 25 million or more in revenue, then they should both be required to contribute, because it’s only fair that they should be contributing.

3122 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And do you think we are comparing oranges with oranges when we compare the foreign online services with the Canadian online services? Should the obligations be exactly the same, do you think?

3123 MS. DAWOOD: Yeah, in an ideal world it should be the same. But I think what’s going to actually happen is we are comparing oranges with apples. And so possibly the obligations might differ in that respect because there are other sections within the Broadcasting Act that do mention considering the business models. So it is possible that in the end the obligations may differ. But what we want in the end is a fair and equitable system for all the broadcasters involved, foreign as well as traditional.

3124 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And one last question. I understand you are opposed to the inclusion of cultural elements in the definition, but you propose at the same time to add incentives to the point system to support diversity. Can you tell us more why it’s important that the notion of diversity be included directly into the definition itself versus other mechanisms like CPE or funding?

3125 MS. ALSHAHWANY: I think that diversity is kind of one of the core elements ‑‑ and preserving diversity and inclusion is one of the core elements of the spirit of the Act. And because PIAC is kind of taking a very people‑centred focus to what we think the criteria should be, it almost made perfect sense to us to have diversity be part of the criteria or even in ‑‑ the cautious line to walk there is tokenization. We don’t want anyone to be tokenized.

3126 And so to have kind of like, you know, filling this role as a key creative producer, you can get a limited number of extra points if those people are representing vulnerable communities or equity‑deserving groups, but not to have, like you know, you can hire two diverse Canadians and then max out all your extra points. So to have something like those extra points being limited is supposed to mitigate against tokenization.

3127 But we think it’s important to have people and diversity in people be part of the definition because that’s just the spirit of the Broadcasting Act to us, yeah.

3128 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you. No more questions.

3129 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

3130 We are going to do one final question with Commissioner Naidoo, and then we will turn things back over to you for closing.

3131 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yeah, we just have time for one quick question. And you may have seen ‑‑ I don’t know if you’ve been watching the hearing from day one ‑‑ some people last week were talking about definitions of showrunner and how we really have to be very, very clear about what some of these definitions are. So I just thought I’d put it to you: Do you have a proposed definition for showrunner, especially considering that we’re looking at the preliminary view that a production should include a showrunner as a Canadian to occupy the position?

3132 MS. ALSHAHWANY: Yeah, I thought it was really interesting that some of the French‑speaking representatives were saying that there isn’t a French word for showrunner or a specific label for the term or the position. And I think that that should be something that’s considered if the Commission’s going to offer an objective definition.

3133 I think “objective definitions” is something that we’re kind of cautious about because it’s very difficult to provide an objective definition, especially if certain roles let’s say are occupied by a small group of people instead of one person. So I think it’s just exercising caution in trying to really include all types of stakeholders before coming to that conclusion.

3134 MR. WHITE: But we commend you to Professor Berkowitz, who you’ve heard from, has a very clear‑cut definition of showrunner and explains the centrality of showrunner, executive producer to the system. So we commend you to that definition, and that’s something I think that lends credibility to that concept and something we could support.

3135 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So you agree that the definitions have to be really well laid out. Is there another definition other than showrunner that you think we need to really dive down on?

3136 MR. WHITE: Perhaps we will give that some thought for our final arguments, but no, not at the current time.

3137 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you. That’s all I had. Thank you.

3138 MR. WHITE: And I believe I am anticipating the question, which I very much appreciate, Madam Chair, where you get to turn it back for any final concluding thoughts. And I said to myself this morning that I’m not going to throw punches like I do in the telecom world, but I feel like I must.

3139 I just think there’s an arrogance from the foreign streamers in terms of not showing up and arguing how their business models are so complicated and so different, like DAZN saying, Don’t. We can’t do this. We can’t pay into the system. We shouldn’t pay into the system.

3140 And I want to make two concluding points. Point number one is, as you know, you are not the legislature. The legislature very clearly ‑‑ the Broadcasting Act has been in place for a long time now, and now we have (f.1). And (f.1) is settled in terms of what your responsibility is as a regulator. And it is to make DAZN and Netflix and everyone else contribute ‑‑ equitably, of course, and that’s a matter of judgment for you. But I don’t think it’s a question. I don’t think it is an open question. You’ve set the base contribution decision already. But it’s as though DAZN was asking you to pretend (f.1) doesn’t exist and that they need special treatment.

3141 I respectfully disagree with that. Who needs special treatment are Canadian programmers. You’ve heard from the Black Screen Office, the Indigenous Screen Office, the Youth Media Alliance, the underpaid public interest advocates. We’re all here. We are part of the system, and we’re trying to make it work for Canadians.

3142 And the second of two points is this: dare to be different. Netflix’s expert, who I don’t think you’re going to hear from, writes a report saying, Oh, if you do this, you’ll be an outlier, Canada, in terms of the way you treat foreign streaming services. Oh, and if you do this, we won’t be investing as much, et cetera.

3143 I would invite you to call Netflix on their bluff. And I would also refer you back to the Broadcasting Act, which actually in a way requires you to be different. But you need to have that moral courage to stand up to the foreign streamers. Cultural policy is the core ‑‑ and industrial policy ‑‑ of the Broadcasting Act. I wouldn’t be pushed around by any of the foreign streamers. Thank you.

3144 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your participation.

3145 MS. DAWOOD: Thank you.

3146 THE SECRETARY: I will now ask Screen Composers Guild to come to the presentation table. When you are ready, please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

3147 MR. ROWLEY: Thank you. Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs and Commissioners and Commission staff, good morning. My name is John Rowley, and I’m here today in my capacity as president of the Screen Composers Guild of Canada or SCGC. I’m also a working screen composer and music supervisor.

3148 SCGC is the national association certified under the Status of the Artist Act representing professional anglophone composers and music producers for audiovisual media productions in Canada.

3149 Over my 21‑year career, I’ve worked as a composer and music supervisor on over 40 Canadian productions, including Pretty Hard Cases, Mary Kills People, Rookie Blue, and Letterkenny. I’m currently the music supervisor on Law & Order Toronto: Criminal Intent. I’ve also worked in the music publishing world representing Canadian music, including Sarah McLachlan’s and the Tragically Hip’s catalogues for audiovisual synchronization licensing. Prior to entering the entertainment industry, I studied law, receiving my call to the Ontario bar in 2001.

3150 I’ll focus my opening remarks on the issue which has concerned, preoccupied, and motivated hundreds of Canadian screen composers to intervene in this proceeding, namely, the Commission’s proposed change to the music composer key creative point. Given our fundamental role as co‑authors and key creators of Canadian programs, I can’t overstate the level of concern and confusion the Commission’s preliminary view regarding the music composer point has created amongst Canada’s screen composers.

3151 To begin, generally speaking, on scripted audiovisual productions, there are three primary authors of the work. The first is the screenwriter, who writes the dialogue. The second is the director, who authors the visual elements. The third is the screen composer, who writes the original compositions and produces the sound recordings comprising a show’s original music soundtrack.

3152 The role of screen composer is not merely a technical or supporting role. It is an authorial role with a high degree of visibility and control, to cite section 13(b) of Cabinet’s direction to the Commission. Given their creative contributions, screen composers unquestionably exercise a high degree of visibility and control over the substance and the tone of a production on par with those of the director or screenwriter.

3153 That’s why we’re fundamentally opposed to the Commission’s proposal to allow the award of a key creative music composer point for the use of pre‑existing foreign music represented by a Canadian rights holder. Simply put, rights holders are not key creators. Therefore, they should not be awarded key creative certification points. It’s equally important to point out that just because international music publishers and record labels have offices in Canada, it does not follow that the foreign songs they represent in this market are Canadian musical works.

3154 Respectfully, the notion that the Commission’s mandate to maximize the use of Canadian key creators could be met either by, one, commissioning an original score from a Canadian screen composer, or, two, merely licensing pre‑existing foreign musical works is difficult to reconcile with the policy objectives set out in the Act and directions from Cabinet.

3155 Moreover, the confusing use of music licensing terminology in the Notice of Consultation has complicated analysis of the proposed change and its impact. For example, it remains unclear whether the notice’s use of the term “an original song” is in fact meant to refer to songs or rather to original score, or whether the notice means to say “licensed” where it says “purchased” in reference to how rights and pre‑existing music are acquired.

3156 What’s entirely clear, though, is that the proposed change would have disastrous outcomes for Canada’s screen composers by allowing productions to earn their Canadian music point and thereby Canadian certification by licensing foreign songs via the Canadian offices of global media giants. If the proposed change was adopted, the music composer point would become the first and only Canadian key creator point awarded in respect of the contributions of foreign creators who haven’t even worked on the certified production.

3157 If applied equitably to screenwriters, for example, this approach would mean that a pre‑existing screenplay by a foreign writer could earn the Canadian screenwriter point, so long as the rights and the screenplay have been acquired or licensed by a Canadian rights holder. Such an outcome would clearly be absurd and inconsistent with the policy objectives guiding the Commission’s work.

3158 I believe it’s not too strong to say that if one set out to disenfranchise Canadian screen composers from their rightful place as valued key creatives in the Canadian audiovisual ecosystem, this change would be an effective way to do so. Neither foreign nor Canadian producers and broadcasters would have any business or regulatory incentive to engage a Canadian screen composer ever again. They’d be free to hire foreign composers and still earn their so‑called Canadian music composer point by licensing American top 40 hits through the Canadian offices of multinational music giants.

3159 In conclusion, SCGC cannot urge this Commission strongly enough to reverse its preliminary view with respect to the music composer point which would reward the world’s largest foreign music and media conglomerates at disastrous expense to Canada’s screen composers. The music composer points should continue to be awarded only where all original music in the production is composed by a Canadian.

3160 Furthermore, where a production engages a composer to create an original score, the composer should be a Canadian. If the Commission wishes to encourage or require greater use of pre‑existing non score Canadian music, as we believe is the case and which we support, SCGC has proposed an alternative approach in our written submission which I would be pleased to discuss.

3161 I will also be happy to discuss SCGC’s position on other elements of our written submission in the Notice of Consultation during the question and answer. I look forward to your questions and thank the Commission for allowing SCGC the opportunity to share its views in this important and highly consequential proceeding.

3162 Thank you.

3163 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to SCGC for being here with us today. I think that the Panel has a number of questions, so we will dive right in with Commissioner Paquette.

3164 Thank you.

3165 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you for your participation, Mr. Rowley.

3166 So you make ‑‑ I think you make it very clear that the CGC opposed the proposal to award points when the music is purchased from right holders, and I understand that, from your point of view, the notion of right holders is very large and you state that it could result in non‑Canadian music being awarded.

3167 Would your position change if we say ‑‑ if the requirement was music composed by Canadian or Canadian music purchased from a right holder? Would it change?

3168 MR. ROWLEY: Thank you for the question.

3169 If I’m understanding you correctly, our position would not change. If it was simply the use of pre‑existing Canadian music that was actually Canadian music, we would still disagree with that change. In our view, there are three conditions to what constitutes a key creative. There are key creator, they are Canadian and they are engaged on the production in question.

3170 So in the case of licensing pre‑existing Canadian songs as defined by the Commission, while we encourage that goal, we think that’s ‑‑ if it was awarded a point, that would create a tension and an unnecessary competition between screen composers and songwriters and performers ‑‑ Canadian songwriters and performers which is why we’ve proposed an alternative approach.

3171 Again, you know, I don’t think it would be fair to screen composers if they were treated differently from the 14 of the 15 proposed points, and that test does apply to 14 out of the 15. They’re Canadian. They’re our key creators and they are engaged by the production.

3172 In the case of other Canadian songwriter whose music is synced to a show, they’re not engaged by a production, they’re no co‑authoring the audio‑visual work. And I think when we think about what constitutes a Canadian program, authorship is really important.

3173 If it’s not authored by Canadian authors, then the work ‑‑ the Canadian audio‑visual work isn’t fundamentally Canadian and we see ourselves as one of the three fundamental co‑authors of the work.

3174 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And the alternative approach that you suggest is that 70 percent of the cost of the music in the production be Canadian, that this should be a requirement. Isn’t there a danger to interfere too much with the creative process and isn’t there a danger that some productions wouldn’t qualify?

3175 MR. ROWLEY: I think there is a danger of that and we certainly would leave it to the Commission if it is interested in pursuing this route in its wisdom to grapple with the issues that are there. I heard you ask Messier about this and her response was that it would be complex and it would be a question of are we talking about how much money of the music licensing budget is spent, are we talking about total duration of music used, are we looking at who wrote it, who performed it.

3176 What we’re proposing is that it would be 75 percent of the music (sic) spent on pre‑existing music would be ‑‑ would have to be ‑‑ go towards Canadian music as defined by the Commission which you’re concurrently engaged with in another proceeding. We’ve intervened in that one as well, as we do have views on it.

3177 I think if the Commission were to pursue this route, which we encourage it to consider strongly because we really do agree with the notion that the Commission should encourage greater use of pre‑existing Canadian music.

3178 Score and songs co‑exist in many, many scripted productions. It’s not an either/or. It’s both. And I think there is a place to encourage greater use of Canadian songs.

3179 There has to be flexibility in whatever standard you were to apply, and I think there’s a possibility of an exception there for projects where it simply doesn’t make sense from a creative standpoint.

3180 My friend, Michael, did a film called Any Other Way: The Jackie Shane Story, which just won a Peabody award. It was about an American trans woman and artist who came up to Canada in the sixties to make her career and, you know, she’s an American writer and performer. It doesn’t make sense in that context that they would have to use 75 percent Canadian music. So exceptions.

3181 I think there’s also a possibility for flexibility on the percentage. If it’s not 75 percent, is it 50 percent, is it 30 percent in line with radio. There’s also a possibility of spreading that out over a broadcasting umbrella group’s entire offering or entire slate.

3182 I think there are ways to do it, and I obviously leave it to the Commission’s wisdom as to how it wanted to achieve that if it went that route.

3183 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I think I know your answer for my next question, but I’ll ask it anyway.

3184 Some intervenors suggest removing the point award to the music composter position and, instead, focus on ensuring that 70 percent of the production using costs go toward licensing of pre‑existing music ‑‑ pre‑existing Canadian music. So can you comment on this proposal?

3185 MR. ROWLEY: Well, for the reasons I’ve mentioned previously, we have long been established as a recognized key creative in the system and we think that’s rightly so based on the fact that we are co‑authors, in our submission, who co‑authored the audio‑visual work when there is a score. Obviously, not all shows have scores, but when there is a score, we are the ones writing the musical ‑‑ the original musical soundtrack. So it would be strange not to recognize that contribution or have it substitutable by a non‑key creative who wasn’t engaged on the show.

3186 So in the case of a rights holder, well, a rights holder is not a key creative. It would be out of line with all the other points to afford a point, a key creative point, to a non‑key creator.

3187 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And to come back on your proposal about the 70 percent of the music being Canadian, can you explain more how would this proposed production cost maximize the employment of Canadian talent in Canadian audio‑visual production?

3188 MR. ROWLEY: Yes. As a music supervisor, I’ve done probably 100 shows over my career. I tend to license music through Canadian entities, whether they are the major labels who have their offices in Toronto or independent Canadian licensors. I don’t necessarily always license Canadian music. I can license ‑‑ you know, in an episode of Law & Order Toronto, we did “Crazy” by Patsy Cline. Well, “Crazy” is written by Willie Nelson and performed by Patsy Cline, who’s also American, but we licensed that, you know, the recording through one of the majors and the publishing to another one of the majors. Those were Canadian costs because they were paid to Canadian entities, but it wasn’t a Canadian song necessarily.

3189 I hope that answers a little bit, but please.

3190 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I have some questions on AI. In your intervention, you noted that artificial intelligence can be of great use for content creators but can also represent risk such as negative impact on employment, as we were discussing.

3191 Could you please explain the different challenges Canadian screen composters have had to face since the evolution of artificial intelligence?

3192 MR. ROWLEY: Yes. The main threat to screen composers and music creators in general, not to mention screenwriters and many other people who are creators, is the threat from generative AI. It’s a dual threat.

3193 There’s one threat which is that it threatens to gobble up all of our creative output and sum it up, tokenize it and then output it into competing works, so we might be replaced on a production, which is another reason why we hope you will protect the music composter point. That does offer a little bit of protection for screen composers within the context.

3194 You know, if, for example, the test was just, you know, performed by a Canadian performer, well, then, you could have a generative AI written piece performed by a Canadian performer and that make up the point. So we’d like that it has to be a Canadian writer.

3195 The other threat is on the ingestion side, the ingestion is unlicensed. It’s an ingestion of copyrighted works. Our position and the position of creators around the world is that fair dealing and fair use does not apply and, therefore, you know, we’re not being ‑‑ we haven’t had credit, we haven’t been compensated, et cetera, so we are missing out on a huge amount of money.

3196 And I have played around with some of these services. They’re making a lot of money. And I know that Spotify is receiving tens of thousands of generative AI works a day. Whether they’re payable or not will be up to copyright offices around the world to decide whether they’re going to afford them copyright. Our position is that they shouldn’t, but what they certainly do is dilute the pool.

3197 If you’re looking at plays, well, your song only got a play because this gen AI work got 10,000 plays, therefore, we’re not paying you, human creator, for the performances of your works on the service. That’s another problem for music creators.

3198 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And where do you think we can trace the line between what is an acceptable use of AI and what is not acceptable? Like it ‑‑

3199 MR. ROWLEY: Well, in our submission we acknowledge that assist AI technologies are widely used within music‑making communities. I think the line, really, is the amount of human input and control. It’s not enough simply to prompt a generative AI system to say I’d like the score, you know, dark and brooding in the style of Hans Zimmer, and that’s it and boom, you get it. Well, there should not be any copyright on that.

3200 On the other hand, if there is a significant human contribution guiding artistry, et cetera, all the sparks that trigger copyright in the first place, human authorship, real human authorship, then it’s possible that the human element of the work is copyrightable and, therefore, there will be rights in it that are exploitable and another portion of that work may not be copyright protected and may not receive royalties, et cetera.

3201 In the context of an audiovisual work, I think it would be ‑‑ first of all, I think it’s important that the original score is written entirely by a human and by a Canadian human, and I think it is to the benefit of producers as well to ensure that as a co‑author, one of the key contributions of the co‑authorship has been done by a human and, therefore, the work has integrity as a copyrightable work, same with the screenwriter, same with the director.

3202 If you start muddying the waters, it is to the detriment of producers because it ‑‑ you know, the copyrightability of the audio‑visual work itself becomes called into question.

3203 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And have you struck any agreement with producers and other right holders on the AI protection?

3204 MR. ROWLEY: No, we haven’t yet. We are the sole ‑‑ to our knowledge, we are the sole current key creative earning creator without an independent production agreement with the producers. We’ve recently learned that we will be working with them towards a first agreement and I’m very hopeful that we get there.

3205 AI will be an element of those discussions. I know that it’s been an element of the discussions in the States with recent strike votes. I know that some of our fellow guilds up here have had those discussions.

3206 As far as I know, the language in their agreements is not mildly protective. I would like to see it more protective to say, you know, the works that we create for you shall not be used for TDM activity and you can’t make extrapolative works and replace me next season with a whole pool of gen AI music bits trained on what I did in season 1. I don’t think that would be a great result and it wouldn’t be worthy of the award of a point, from my perspective.

3207 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And one last question. What measures should the Commission put in place to better support music composers retain intellectual property for their work?

3208 MR. ROWLEY: Well, I think there are several, and I will come back to this when we get to the market dynamics phase of the consultations.

3209 I think there are several things.

3210 Certainly a great first step, which is encouraging, is that we will be speaking with CMPA and we’ll be negotiating towards a first agreement. Part of our position there will, of course, be that the Copyright Act says that what we create as authors is owned by us, first and foremost, and we’ll negotiate from that position.

3211 You know, importantly, in the context of this discussion, it will be important, I think, to support the role of the Canadian producers and their IP ownership in the works that are going to be funded through these new funds coming in.

3212 If they don’t have creative control and ownership, then what’s going to be imposed on them, as is currently being imposed, is, well, you’re going to be work for hire on your project and certainly your composer’s going to be work for hire on a project because that’s the way it is where we come from. And under that model, I never was the author of the score I did for that show because my engager was. And that certainly seems like something that we would want to avoid in the Canadian system. I think Canadian creators should have the benefit of our Canadian copyright law, which is very clear that we have ownership as authors and where ownership goes from there is a question of negotiation, not a question of simply being taken.

3213 And I know what happens to many producers, and they put their hands up in the air and say, “It’s not us, it’s our distributors. They’ve said we have to take this and we have to take exploitation of all rights and all revenue streams”. But from our perspective, you know, those deals are unenforceable. How can you give away something in advance which doesn’t belong to you?

3214 You know, producers often say, well, we signed it away in the distribution agreement so, therefore, you have to give up your copyright.

3215 Well, that was improper for you to do so. So we do think that recognition of ‑‑ and the ability to rely on Canadian law for all Canadian creatives will be an important component.

3216 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you. Thank you very much.

3217 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

3218 And I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

3219 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

3220 And thank you, Mr. Rowley, for the quality of the answers. I think we’ve covered a lot of grounds thanks, in part, to my colleague, Commissioner from Quebec, Commissioner Paquette.

3221 So in your intervention, you propose that the Commission adopt a higher threshold of 12 on 15 points for a production to be considered Canadian. In addition, you recommend that an individual occupying more than one key creative position should not earn points for each position occupied.

3222 A lot of smaller productions or productions made by emerging talent will have, out of necessity, individuals occupying more than one role. Wouldn’t your approach disadvantage those productions?

3223 MR. ROWLEY: Could you go back to the first point you asked just so I have that in my head? The first point was?

3224 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Was just a reminder that, in your submission, you suggest that we adopt a higher threshold, 12 on 15.

3225 MR. ROWLEY: Yes.

3226 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: But in situations where one individual occupies several of the positions, sometimes out of necessity because it’s a smaller production, that the same production should not be able to accumulate one point for each of the positions even though the positions are held by one individual.

3227 So my question is, isn’t that a scenario that could be detrimental to some of the smaller productions?

3228 MR. ROWLEY: I guess what we’re driving at there is what we take from the Act and the Policy Direction is that part of the guiding principle is that the Commission should work towards the maximization of these, of Canadian key creative and other talent.

3229 So on the first point, we don’t think 60 approaches maximization. We propose to a threshold of 80 percent. We think that’s more in line with the notion of maximization.

3230 I was disappointed to hear MPAC’s response on Friday when asked about what is practicable. They went immediately to 51 percent.

3231 Well, they’re doing better than 51 percent currently and, you know, have many shows on their networks airing that are fully Canadian. Schitt’s Creek was mentioned, Workin’ Moms, et cetera. And they’re doing very well with those shows.

3232 On the second point, we also said in our submission if a production can’t get to the threshold, then we believe that all positions should be held by a Canadian. Perhaps in those instances where they can’t get there, there should also be an exception that, you know, more than one point may be taken by an individual. And I think the types of productions that we’re talking about are smaller, web‑based productions and documentaries, I think, where people are doing multiple roles.

3233 We were really targeted in that point about the notion of the showrunner, which we’re in favour of the possibility of granting point for showrunner, but we do note that on many productions, you can have a showrunner who’s also the director, the writer and star. And if you’re giving double points for showrunner, double points for writer, director and star, well, then you’re nearly there to your certification threshold. And the danger of that from our perspective and our experience watching what the streamers have come up and produced here, is it’s very easy. There’s a very clear path to certification by only coming here and shooting and then taking all of your post‑production away to your home base, whether that’s Los Angeles or elsewhere.

3234 We think it would be a regulatory failure if, five years from now, we see that all of the productions have come and shot here, but nobody in post‑production, editors, sound editors, post‑production supervisors, et cetera, if none of us are working because all of this newly‑funded content is ‑‑ simply comes here to shoot like a service production and then goes elsewhere.

3235 So we think it may be beneficial for the Commission to think about whether there should be some requirement that certain points are met in post‑production rather than just in production, particularly if it’s some expanded number of positions that recognize hair, et cetera. It becomes very easy to avoid using any screen composters. And again, that’s to the detriment of the creation of Canadian IP, and it’s valuable Canadian IP.

3236 You know, SOCAN brings in over $500 million a year. A lot of that, I believe roughly half, is from audiovisual and a smaller percentage of that is for Canadian composers.

3237 So there’s a real financial benefit to it and, also, there’s real financial benefit to Canadian producers. We share revenues with them and it subsidizes their business and helps them to grow. And so there’s a possibility here that that could just ‑‑ the IP in the scores could just be taken by their streaming partners if they’re required to work on these shows in order to trigger funding, but they have no intellectual property rights. They’re not going to get the benefit of the musical revenues as well.

3238 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Maybe one last question.

3239 So in an earlier response, you mentioned “Crazy” by Patsy Cline, which made me through of C.R.A.Z.Y. the movie, the Canadian movie, which is probably, at least in my own personal view, one of the best Canadian movies in the last 30 years where the score was composed ‑‑ was, you know, comprised of tracks that were not Canadian, largely David Bowie, right.

3240 It was a huge success and I think it certainly contributed to Canadian cinematographers and filmmakers being known in the world and launched the international career of Jean‑Marc Vallée, right.

3241 And so how do we still allow for these types of works to be recognized as Canadian works while, at the same time, preserving the contribution of Canadian screen score ‑‑ musical score writers? Is it by including some flexibility? How do we make that happen?

3242 MR. ROWLEY: Thank you.

3243 I think the flexibility is already there. We certainly acknowledge not all projects are going to be required to have an original score, and that’s a creative decision. I’ve music supervised on Letterkenny, the show, for a season and it was a creative decision that show would be unscored. It would be scored with songs. And that’s fine.

3244 You don’t have to use the music composer point to get to a certification. If there is no music composer, that’s fine. So I believe that flexibility exists.

3245 Now, in the case of that, it would fall into that category of, if you were considering implementing the proposed additional spending requirement, then that ‑‑ obviously, if those are American composed songs or English composed songs in the case of David Bowie, that’s one of those situations where I do think flexibility, if you implement that additional spending requirement, should be baked into whatever standard is applied because I agree, we don’t want to hamstring producers and directors and creativity to do what they want to do.

3246 Our point in suggesting that is we perceive the Commission has an interest in promoting greater use of pre‑existing Canadian music and we agree with that. We would like to support that. We’re just ‑‑ we don’t want it to be done at the expense of the music composter’s ongoing use as a point.

3247 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much.

3248 MR. ROWLEY: Thank you.

3249 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, and thank you for the discussion this morning.

3250 We would like to offer you the final word.

3251 MR. ROWLEY: Thank you. I think I’ve said everything that I want to say except that, again, I really appreciate the opportunity to come here and represent the interests of my 500 members and the other many anglophone composers across the country who aren’t members but who we do also represent.

3252 And I guess I would conclude by saying ‑‑ echoing some of the things that were said earlier today, is I think it is a privilege to do business in Canada for a foreign entity and that privilege comes with a cost. I think the costs that have been set out are not unreasonable. I think the system as it works, works relatively well.

3253 So I would encourage the Commission that while flexibility is needed, let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. There are many good aspects to the system as it currently functions. And best of luck to you all. I know it’s a difficult task.

3254 Thank you so much.

3255 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, SCGC.

3256 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

3257 We will take a lunch break and be back at 12:30.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 11 h 40

‑‑‑ Reprise à 12 h 34

3258 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Nous sommes prêts à débuter. Nous allons maintenant entendre les participants suivants. Société professionnelle des auteurs‑compositeurs du Québec et des artistes entrepreneurs et l’Association des professionnels de l’édition musicale, qui comparaissent virtuellement.

3259 Nous entendrons chaque présentation. Puis les membres du comité d’audition poseront des questions à tous les participants.

3260 Nous commencerons par la présentation de la Société professionnelle des auteurs‑compositeurs du Québec et des artistes entrepreneurs. S’il vous plaît vous présenter et vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

3261 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Bonjour, Madame la Présidente, chers Commissaires et membres du personnel.

3262 Je suis Ariane Charbonneau, directrice générale de la SPACQ‑AE, la Société professionnelle des auteurs‑compositeurs du Québec et des artistes entrepreneurs. La SPACQ‑AE représente depuis 44 ans les intérêts moraux, économiques et professionnels des auteurs et compositeurs de chansons francophones à travers le Canada et de tous les compositeurs de musique de commande au Québec. Aujourd’hui, nous représentons plus de 800 membres.

3263 Nous sommes signataires de l’intervention de la coalition ACCORD et soutenons les positions exprimées par l’ADISQ, l’APEM et la SCGC dans le cadre de cet avis. Aujourd’hui, nous prenons la parole pour soutenir l’importance d’une reconnaissance équitable et cohérente du rôle des compositeurs de musique de commande pour les productions canadiennes.

3264 Nous nous opposons à la proposition du Conseil d’accorder un point de création pour le poste de compositeur simplement sur la base de l’utilisation de musique préexistante, acquise auprès d’un détenteur de droits canadien.

3265 Cette modification créerait une incohérence majeure : le poste clé de compositeur serait le seul pour lequel il ne serait plus nécessaire de recruter un créateur canadien. Une telle exception compromettrait l’intégrité du système de certification.

3266 Les compositeurs de musique sont des créateurs à part entière. Ils et elles ne sont pas de simples fournisseurs. Ils sont des auteurs, souvent producteurs indépendants, titulaires de droits de propriété intellectuelle, et jouent un rôle artistique aussi fondamental que les scénaristes et réalisateurs.

3267 Le Conseil doit donc préserver le point attribué au poste clé de compositeur pour des œuvres originales créées spécifiquement pour les productions audiovisuelles canadiennes.

3268 Le seuil proposé de 60 pour cent de postes clés occupés par des Canadiens est insuffisant. Le Décret ministériel exige un recours maximal aux ressources humaines créatives canadiennes. Ce seuil devrait donc être porté à 80 pour cent.

3269 Nous demandons également que les points ne puissent être attribués qu’à un seul rôle clé par personne, pour éviter les effets de concentration et favoriser une réelle diversité de créateurs.

3270 La SPACQ‑AE demande expressément que les œuvres générées par intelligence artificielle ne soient pas considérées comme du contenu canadien.

3271 Le droit d’auteur repose sur la contribution humaine. L’IA ne peut remplacer des créateurs, sans quoi l’esprit de la Loi serait contourné et l’économie créative canadienne fragilisée.

3272 Nous reconnaissons que certains outils d’IA peuvent assister les créateurs, mais une distinction claire doit être maintenue entre assistance et substitution.

3273 Concernant la musique synchronisée, la SPACQ‑AE soutient la proposition conjointe, élaborée par l’APEM, que mon collègue Jérôme Payette vous présentera plus en détail. Cette approche, plus souple que celle initialement envisagée, vise à encourager une utilisation accrue de musique canadienne dans les productions audiovisuelles, en visant un objectif global à l’échelle du système plutôt qu’une exigence appliquée à chaque production.

3274 Cette mesure simple, fondée sur les rapports de contenu (les cue sheets), permettrait de soutenir notre écosystème musical tout en évitant de fragiliser le rôle du compositeur.

3275 La SPACQ‑AE insiste sur l’importance de maintenir des exigences liées aux émissions d’intérêt national, qui jouent un rôle clé dans la visibilité des créateurs. Elle recommande aussi d’adopter des approches différenciées pour le marché francophone dans le cadre des dépenses en émissions canadiennes en raison de sa vulnérabilité particulière comme langue minoritaire.

3276 La SPACQ‑AE encourage le Conseil à renforcer la transparence en rendant publiques les données non confidentielles relatives à la certification des émissions canadiennes. Ces informations, incluant les postes clés de création, sont essentielles pour suivre l’évolution du système de radiodiffusion et évaluer l’atteinte des objectifs de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion.

3277 Pour conclure, la SPACQ‑AE:

3278 ‑ s’oppose à la redéfinition du poste clé du compositeur de musique;

3279 ‑ demande un seuil de 80 pour cent de postes clés occupés par des Canadiens;

3280 ‑ recommande d’empêcher l’attribution de plusieurs points à une même personne;

3281 ‑ propose d’exclure l’IA comme source de contenu admissible; et

3282 ‑ encourage une utilisation accrue de la musique canadienne dans les productions.

3283 Nos musiques enrichissent nos récits, renforcent leur identité et contribuent à au rayonnement de nos productions audiovisuelles. Il est donc impératif de préserver leur place centrale.

3284 La SPACQ‑AE remercie le CRTC de l’opportunité? de faire valoir ses observations et la voix de tous ses membres.

3285 Merci.

3286 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de l’Association des professionnels de l’édition musicale. S’il vous plaît, vous présenter. Et vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

3287 M. PAYETTE : Bonjour, Madame la Présidente, membres du Conseil et toute l’équipe du CRTC.

3288 Je vous remercie de l’invitation à venir m’exprimer devant vous.

3289 Il y a de la musique partout, notamment dans les productions audiovisuelles, et partout où il y a de la musique, il y a de l’édition musicale.

3290 Je me présente. Je suis Jérôme Payette, directeur général de l’Association des professionnels de l’édition musicale. On représente les éditeurs musicaux québécois et francophones du Canada. Les éditeurs musicaux sont les partenaires des auteurs‑compositeurs et représentent leurs œuvres.

3291 Notre association partage les grandes lignes des interventions de la coalition ACCORD, de l’ADISQ et de la SPACQ‑AE.

3292 Comme vous le savez, il y a plusieurs types de musiques dans une production audiovisuelle. On distingue généralement la musique de commande, écrite sur mesure par des compositeurs de musique à l’image, de la musique préexistante, qui fait l’objet d’une licence d’utilisation.

3293 La musique préexistante peut être séparée en deux grandes catégories. Celle qui est interprétée par un artiste plus ou moins connu et qui est commercialisée dans le secteur de la musique. C’est ce qu’on appelle la synchronisation ou la synchro dans notre jargon. Et il y a aussi la musique de librairie, qui est souvent écrite pour l’audiovisuel et qui n’est généralement pas commercialisée seule.

3294 Les membres de l’APEM travaillent étroitement avec le secteur audiovisuel, notamment quand vient le temps d’incorporer de la musique préexistante dans une production.

3295 On met de l’avant quatre points dans cette consultation :

3296 ‑ d’abord, le poste clé de compositeur de la musique doit rester inchangé;

3297 ‑ il faut favoriser l’intégration davantage de musique préexistante canadienne dans nos productions audiovisuelles;

3298 ‑ il faut privilégier des émissions qui atteignent les objectifs des émissions d’intérêt national; et

3299 ‑ le Conseil doit continuer à adopter une approche différente pour les marchés de langue française et de langue anglaise.

3300 Donc, premièrement, nous sommes d’accord avec les regroupements qui représentent les compositeurs de musique à l’image : le poste clé compositeur de la musique doit rester inchangé. Donc, je vais m’arrêter ici sur ce point pour éviter de répéter ce que ma collègue Ariane de la SPACQ‑AE vient juste de mentionner.

3301 Le deuxième point concerne l’incorporation de musique préexistante canadienne dans nos productions audiovisuelles. Alors que notre souveraineté culturelle est plus importante que jamais, nous croyons que les secteurs de la musique et de l’audiovisuel doivent travailler ensemble puisque nous nous adressons au même public.

3302 Nous croyons que favoriser l’incorporation davantage de musique préexistante canadienne dans nos productions permettrait de faire d’une pierre deux coups et de maximiser les retombées du système canadien de radiodiffusion.

3303 En effet, renforcer le partenariat entre nos secteurs permettrait de contribuer à l’atteinte des objectifs de la loi, notamment en favorisant l’emploi de ressources créatives canadiennes ‑ dans ce cas‑ci la musique canadienne ‑ et favoriserait également sa découverte.

3304 Nous avons d’ailleurs interprété la proposition du CRTC concernant la musique préexistante comme une volonté de bonifier nos musiques dans les productions canadiennes et on vous en remercie.

3305 Nous croyons toutefois que la meilleure façon de faire serait d’introduire une nouvelle exigence au niveau des dépenses en musique préexistante. La proposition que je vous présente aujourd’hui est légèrement différente de celle qui a été incluse dans notre observation.

3306 Donc, chaque élément du système qui participe au financement des productions canadiennes, c’est‑à‑dire les radiodiffuseurs traditionnels, les entreprises en ligne et les fonds qui soutiennent la création, devrait être tenu de s’assurer que 75 pour cent des dépenses en musique préexistante soit dépensé pour des pièces musicales canadiennes, telles que définies par le CRTC.

3307 Notre nouvelle proposition est plus flexible que la proposition initiale, car elle vise un résultat global et non que chaque production atteigne l’exigence de dépense pour obtenir une certification.

3308 Dans le but de favoriser la musique préexistante canadienne, le Conseil pourrait donc inscrire cette exigence de dépense dans ses licences ou ordonnances avec les radiodiffuseurs traditionnels ou en ligne ainsi que dans les politiques relatives aux fonds puis recueillir annuellement des renseignements pour vérifier l’atteinte de l’exigence.

3309 Cette mesure permettrait de donner plus de visibilité aux pièces musicales canadiennes via nos productions audiovisuelles, permettrait au secteur de la musique de générer de nouveaux revenus et limiterait les dépenses des productions canadiennes en musique étrangère. Favoriser la musique canadienne est aussi une façon de protéger la place des créateurs humains face à la montée de la musique produite par de l’intelligence artificielle.

3310 Mais le secteur de la musique a également beaucoup à apporter au secteur audiovisuel. Une bonne musique bonifie la qualité d’une production et des stratégies de promotion croisée peuvent être déployées pour faire rayonner nos productions, notamment à l’ère où nos artistes ont une certaine visibilité sur les médias sociaux.

3311 J’arrive maintenant au troisième point de notre intervention. Le Conseil doit s’assurer de disposer des outils réglementaires nécessaires afin de privilégier des émissions qui atteignent les objectifs des émissions d’intérêt national.

3312 Plusieurs catégories telles que les variétés, Galas et les émissions de musique sont importantes pour notre secteur. Le CRTC doit continuer à exiger que ces émissions soient produites et diffusées. Elles ont une grande importance pour notre culture.

3313 Finalement, le Conseil doit continuer à adopter des approches différentes pour les marchés de langue française et de langue anglaise. Nos deux marchés sont distincts, font face à des réalités différentes et doivent pouvoir compter sur un soutien réglementaire adapté.

3314 Donc, voici mon intervention. Il me fera plaisir de répondre à vos questions.

3315 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Alors, de la part du panel, un gros merci pour vos interventions cet après‑midi. On va commencer avec notre vice‑présidente. Merci.

3316 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci beaucoup. Bon après‑midi. Ça fait plaisir de vous voir aujourd’hui. Merci pour la qualité de vos interventions et vos présentations respectives.

3317 Je voudrais commencer avec la définition. Vous proposez que le seuil minimal de 60 pour cent de postes clés occupés par des Canadiens soit fixé à 80 pour cent, si j’ai bien compris. Est‑ce que cette proposition pourrait, à votre avis, avoir un impact sur de possibles collaborations et des partenariats avec des compagnies de production canadiennes, entre des compagnies de production canadiennes et des plateformes, et des compagnies de productions étrangères?

3318 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Oui, pour répondre à votre question. Merci pour la question, madame Théberge. Nous sommes évidemment au courant que les compositeurs de musique sont des partenaires dans une production audiovisuelle. Évidemment, tous les postes clés de création sont importants. Et, pour nous, ça va avec les objectifs du décret d’instruction et de la loi pour maximiser les ressources humaines canadiennes.

3319 Donc, pour nous, le cadre réglementaire assure une certaine flexibilité à tous les niveaux. C’est pour ça que mon collègue et moi avons proposé justement le seuil de 75 pour cent pour justement ouvrir la collaboration avec d’autres productions audiovisuelles étrangères.

3320 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Juste pour être claire, c’est 80 pour cent ou c’est 75 pour cent pour le pourcentage de postes occupés par des Canadiens?

3321 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Les postes clés, ce que, nous, on propose, la SPACQ‑AE, avec la SCGC, c’est 80 pour cent.

3322 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Parfait. Merci.

3323 Dans votre intervention, vous proposez aussi l’ajout d’un critère de certification voulant qu’au moins 75 pour cent du budget alloué à la musique préexistante soit dépensé pour des pièces musicales canadiennes telles que définies par le CRTC et tel que le demande l’Adisq également.

3324 Qu’est‑ce qui arrive avec des œuvres audiovisuelles canadiennes qui utilisent de la musique non canadienne? Je pense notamment aux films de Xavier Dolan, j’ai fait référence un peu plus tôt ce matin à Crazy, qui sont quand même des œuvres qui ont contribué à stimuler une demande pour du contenu canadien.

3325 Comment est‑ce qu’on doit traiter ces œuvres‑là qui contiennent donc des pièces musicales qui ne sont pas canadiennes?

3326 M. PAYETTE : Oui. D’abord, merci, Madame Théberge, pour la question. J’aimerais préciser qu’on a un petit peu modifié notre proposition. Donc, plutôt que ce soit par production audiovisuelle, ce serait par diffuseur ou par fonds. Donc, ça donne un petit peu plus de souplesse. Donc, une production pourrait, donc, ne pas atteindre le 75 pour cent de musique préexistante canadienne. Mais il faudrait qu’ils se reprennent sur d’autres productions pour qu’on ait un effet global à la fin de l’année, que ce diffuseur‑là ou que ce fonds‑là, bien, s’assure que 75 pour cent du budget de musique préexistante soit dépensé en musique préexistante canadienne.

3327 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Donc, juste pour que ce soit clair, une maison de production, par exemple, aurait comme responsabilité overall sur une année, par exemple, la responsabilité de dépenser 75 pour cent de son budget total sur des pièces musicales canadiennes? C’est comme ça que ça fonctionnerait?

3328 M. PAYETTE : Non, pas exactement. Donc, nous, selon notre compréhension, le CRTC a des liens avec les diffuseurs, comme, par exemple, Netflix ou des groupes de diffuseurs, par exemple, Groupe TVA. Donc, ce serait entre le CRTC et ces groupes‑là qui, après ça, eux, devraient voir dans leur année, dans leurs dépenses puis des contenus qu’ils commandent, de s’assurer qu’ils atteignent l’effet d’ensemble de 75 pour cent. Donc, ce ne serait pas chaque production. Oui.

3329 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Et s’ils ne… O.K. Pardon. Et, s’ils ne l’atteignent pas, il y a un effet rétroactif? Comment est‑ce que ça s’opérationnalise?

3330 M. PAYETTE : Écoutez, il y a… C’est au CRTC à prendre les mesures pour s’assurer de l’atteinte de ces objectifs.

3331 Maintenant, nous, on pense que ça doit être… On doit aider la musique canadienne avec les productions audiovisuelles. On pense que c’est faire d’une pierre deux coups. Nos productions audiovisuelles, elles sont soit financées par des fonds publics ou leur montage financier découle d’une réglementation. Le CRTC agit autant en musique qu’en audiovisuel. On pense qu’il y a vraiment d’une pierre deux coups à faire.

3332 Après ça, sur la façon de faire, on est flexibles. Puis on est prêts à trouver des solutions qui fonctionnent réellement. Donc, nous autres, on pensait que non pas d’avoir le 75 pour cent par production, mais de le mettre au niveau du diffuseur pour quand même avoir un effet global sur une année. C’était une façon d’avoir plus de flexibilité.

3333 Maintenant, j’entends les questions insistantes là‑dessus. Je n’en ai pas parlé de manière très, très, très détaillée avec mes collègues. Sous toutes réserves, bien, on pourrait aussi envisager peut‑être encore plus de flexibilité. Pour répondre à votre question directement, si jamais il y avait une exigence qu’ils devaient dépenser 75 pour cent de leur budget en musique préexistante à de la musique canadienne et qu’ils arrivaient à 60 pour cent, potentiellement qu’on pourrait leur demander de verser le 15 pour cent de différence, entre le 60 et le 75 pour cent, à des fonds de soutien à la musique canadienne. Comme ça, il y aurait vraiment un incitatif fort à ce qu’ils financent la musique canadienne dans nos productions en audiovisuelle et que, s’ils n’atteignent pas, bien, qu’ils compensent financièrement le secteur de la musique. Donc, c’est une avenue qui pourrait être exploitée, là, explorée.

3334 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci, merci. Puis je ne voulais pas vous prendre au dépourvu. Alors, peut‑être qu’on fera un suivi avec une demande d’information supplémentaire, juste pour que vous ayez le temps de préciser votre proposition, là, parce que je ne veux pas vous placer dans une situation difficile.

3335 Une autre question, si vous me permettez. Un peu plus tôt ce matin, la Guilde des compositeurs nous disait que la définition ne devrait pas reconnaître un point pour chaque fonction dans les scénarios où un seul individu ou un seul poste créatif cumule plusieurs fonctions. Or, on sait que, dans les petites productions audiovisuelles, ça peut arriver que le réalisateur soit aussi le compositeur, soit aussi le directeur photo, et cætera, et cætera.

3336 Et je pense que vous partagez, de ce que j’ai compris de votre soumission, vous partagez l’avis de la Guilde. Mais, ce matin, on s’inquiétait un peu que, peut‑être, ça pourrait se faire au détriment justement des petites productions. Alors, j’aurais aimé vous entendre un peu. Votre collègue mentionnait la possibilité d’octroyer des exceptions, justement, pour permettre ces cas de figure. J’aurais aimé un petit peu vous entendre là‑dessus.

3337 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Merci de votre question. Oui, absolument. Donc, c’est sûr que, nous, dans notre cas, nos membres travaillent beaucoup dans des productions audiovisuelles qui sont plus petites ou indépendantes. Donc, on connaît très bien la réalité.

3338 Nos membres travaillent autant en cinéma qu’en télévision ou des documentaires, par exemple. Donc, on connaît très bien cette réalité‑là. Et le cadre réglementaire est assez flexible pour pouvoir permettre les plus petites productions audiovisuelles canadiennes à atteindre ce quota‑là.

3339 C’est pour ça que, par exemple, on parle de dépenses aussi de contenus canadiens. Ça, c’est pour la musique préexistante. Donc, il y a des façons aussi de rendre le cadre réglementaire flexible, encore plus flexible.

3340 C’est sûr que je suis aussi de l’avis de mon collègue de l’ACGC concernant les exceptions. Tout ça, évidemment, est à développer davantage.

3341 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci. Sur les émissions d’intérêt national, hier, avec vos collègues de l’Adisq, on a beaucoup parlé du rôle, notamment dans le marché québécois, que joue un certain type d’émissions qui tombent dans cette catégorie pour justement permettre une certaine visibilité de nos artistes, y compris les artistes en musique.

3342 Mais, si le Conseil décidait à la suite de ses consultations de supprimer les dépenses en émissions d’intérêt national, quelles solutions proposeriez‑vous pour continuer à soutenir efficacement la production de contenu culturel canadien diversifié et quel type de productions, selon vous, sont plus à risque de disparaître si aucun soutien ne leur est fourni?

3343 M. PAYETTE : Écoutez, nous, on pense que ce serait une mauvaise idée que de supprimer les émissions d’intérêt national ou, au moins, il faudrait préserver ou assurer une continuité de l’esprit, donc, de ce qui est derrière les EIN. Donc, il doit y avoir une certaine forme de contrainte quelque part. On pense qu’il doit y avoir un pourcentage de dépenses qui doit aller à des émissions, par exemple, qui mettent de l’avant la musique. On sait que c’est important pour le secteur de la musique qu’on représente aujourd’hui. Donc, ça, c’est clair. Donc, il doit y avoir des dépenses en émissions canadiennes qui vont financer ces productions‑là, à notre avis.

3344 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Je rajouterais même que, pour nos membres, t’sais, nous, on représente autant des auteurs‑compositeurs de chansons que des compositeurs de musiques à l’image. Donc, pour nous, c’est sûr que, du côté de la chanson, nos membres dépendent beaucoup de ces émissions‑là. Il y a des émissions de variétés en musique, des galas, qui favorisent énormément la découvrabilité des contenus musicaux francophones. C’est sûr que le marché francophone est distinct. Et, ça, il faut le tenir en compte.

3345 Historiquement, le CRTC a toujours régulé ces deux marchés de façon distincte. Et, pour nous, il n’existe pas de raison pour ne plus tenir compte de ces deux marchés distincts. Et, pour nous, ce serait… il y aurait de très grosses répercussions au niveau de la découvrabilité de nos musiques.

3346 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Lorsque vous parlez de la distinction entre les deux marchés, comment est‑ce que ça se manifeste avec l’arrivée des plateformes numériques et comment est‑ce que la réglementation elle‑même devrait peut‑être être adaptée de façon à préserver un traitement différencié entre les deux marchés dans un contexte où les plateformes numériques offrent aussi des opportunités de découvrabilité pour la créativité musicale locale. Encore une fois, vos collègues de l’Adisq donnaient l’exemple des émissions de type Tiny Desk, qui sont des véhicules exceptionnels pour notamment des talents émergents ou qui aspirent à avoir beaucoup plus de visibilité internationale.

3347 Alors, je vous entends lorsque vous dites que, à ce jour, la réglementation différenciée a bien fait son travail d’une certaine façon pour reconnaître la distinction entre les deux marchés. Mais comment est‑ce qu’elle évolue dans un contexte où les plateformes sont maintenant des joueurs absolument incontournables, à moins que vous me disiez que, dans le marché francophone, le côté incontournable des plateformes ne se comprend pas de la même façon que dans le reste du Canada?

3348 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Mais c’est sûr que… Oh, pardon (indiscernable).

3349 M. PAYETTE : Beaucoup… Vas‑y, Ariane, vas‑y Ariane.

3350 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Bien, c’est sûr qu’au Québec, t’sais, des émissions comme le Gala de l’Adisq ou des émissions qui sont télévisées ont une incidence vraiment majeure sur l’auditoire. Ce sont des centaines de milliers de francophones qui écoutent ça.

3351 Au niveau des plateformes de diffusion en continu, c’est de voir comment est‑ce que ces deux marchés‑là peuvent coexister. C’est sûr qu’il y a beaucoup d’émissions qui sont maintenant aussi rediffusées sur le Web. Donc, c’est de voir, évidemment, comment est‑ce qu’on réglemente à ce niveau‑là. Je n’ai malheureusement pas une réponse pour vous aujourd’hui à ce niveau‑là. Peut‑être que mon collègue Jérôme Payette peut compléter.

3352 M. PAYETTE : Bien, ce que je peux dire peut‑être, c’est qu’il faut s’assurer qu’il y ait toujours la production de ces contenus‑là. Donc, si jamais les règles ne sont pas transposées, si on veut, pour le marché des plateformes en ligne, bien, on va voir ces contenus‑là disparaître. Donc, on n’aura pas cette vitrine‑là. Donc, il faut qu’il y ait des incitatifs financiers à produire des émissions qui mettent de l’avant la musique, notamment la musique francophone sur les services de musique en ligne. Puis ça n’empêche pas, évidemment, de continuer à faire ce qui est déjà fait dans l’environnement des télés traditionnelles.

3353 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Donc, à votre avis, c’est une problématique qui s’adresse mieux via des incitatifs plutôt que des obligations de dépenses dans ce genre d’émissions ou je suis en train de vous mettre des mots dans la bouche?

3354 M. PAYETTE : Ce n’est pas ça que j’ai dit. Moi, je pense que ça doit être des obligations parce qu’il faut absolument qu’on continue de bénéficier de cette vitrine‑là. Et on le sait, on est un petit marché en Amérique du Nord, le marché francophone. Et, sans obligations, bien, les incitatifs ont tendance à ne pas fonctionner.

3355 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Est‑ce qu’il y a un appétit ou c’est… Vous parlez de musique francophone en particulier. Lorsqu’on transige, justement, avec les plateformes numériques, on parle souvent des difficultés à susciter un intérêt pour du contenu francophone. J’imagine que ça s’applique aussi en contenu musical francophone. Comment est‑ce qu’on fait pour créer un enthousiasme? Est‑ce que c’est une cause perdue ou il y a des mécanismes bien concrets que vous avez déjà testés qui permettent donc d’attirer l’attention et de mener à des partenariats qui aident à la visibilité du contenu francophone musical?

3356 M. PAYETTE : Si je peux me permettre, l’appétit vient en mangeant puis on n’a pas beaucoup produit de contenu musical en ligne sur les plateformes. Donc, c’est difficile de juger de l’appétit ou non pour ces contenus‑là puisqu’ils, à ma connaissance, ils sont insuffisants.

3357 Mais, oui, il y a moyen de travailler avec le secteur de la musique et de l’audiovisuel. On le sait, de plus en plus, les artistes sont des influenceurs, ont une certaine portée sur les médias sociaux. Il y a plein de stratégies de promotion croisée qui peuvent être faites entre les deux secteurs. Il y a des avenues à explorer.

3358 Mais, encore une fois, on pense que ça prend plus que des incitatifs. Ce n’est pas suffisant, les incitatifs. Ça prend des obligations qui vont d’abord permettre la production de ces contenus‑là.

3359 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Et est‑ce que c’est les mêmes défis vis‑à‑vis les plateformes canadiennes que les plateformes étrangères ou la conversation, la possibilité d’avoir des partenariats avec les plateformes canadiennes, c’est quelque chose qui est déjà plus envisageable à court, moyen terme?

3360 M. PAYETTE : Écoutez… Bien, Ariane, veux‑tu… c’est ton tour.

3361 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Je pense que les partenariats doivent être envisagés avec les plateformes autant étrangères que canadiennes. Pour nous, pour les compositeurs de musique à l’image, il est aussi question de détenir la propriété intellectuelle, donc, détenir la bande maîtresse. Notre collègue de l’ACGC a mentionné brièvement les ententes collectives. Dans le cas de la SPACQ‑AE, nous avons des ententes collectives pour encadrer le travail de la composition de musiques de commande.

3362 Évidemment, si les compositeurs de musique ont ce droit de propriété intellectuelle, il y a une exploitation qui va avec également. Donc, c’est des revenus également pour nous secteur.

3363 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci. Je vais m’arrêter ici. Merci beaucoup pour vos réponses.

3364 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Alors, on va continuer avec notre collègue, la conseillère… pas la commissaire, la conseillère Paquette. Merci.

3365 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Merci. Bonjour, monsieur Payette. Bonjour, madame Charbonneau. Je commencerais peut‑être par une question, pour poursuivre, aller un peu plus loin sur la question des émissions d’intérêt national. Vous dites que certaines catégories d’EIN permettent aux musiques locales d’être valorisées auprès de différents auditoires. Est‑ce que vous référez spécifiquement aux cérémonies de remise de prix, aux galas ou est‑ce qu’il y a d’autres catégories d’émissions qui ont un impact impact important sur la valorisation de la musique?

3366 M. PAYETTE : Je pense que ce n’est pas seulement les galas, les remises de prix. On pense qu’il y a des variétés dans lesquelles il y a de la musique qui est très présente. Il y a aussi des concepts qui sont basés sur la musique, donc, que ce soient des émissions où on voit des personnes chanter ou danser sur de la musique. Ces choses‑là sont importantes puis permettent aussi de donner une certaine visibilité au secteur de la musique à travers nos productions.

3367 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : On avait un peu plus tôt ce matin la Screen Composer Guild of Canada, qui propose entre autres dans son intervention que le poste de compositeur de musique soit détenu obligatoirement par un Canadien. J’aimerais bien avoir votre point de vue sur la question. Quelles seraient entre autres les répercussions concrètes sur les collaborations internationales si le Conseil adoptait une telle approche? Avez‑vous un point de vue sur la question.

3368 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Oui, certainement. Les compositeurs de musique sont un poste clé de création. Pour nous, il faut absolument que le compositeur de musique soit considéré, il reste tel quel. C’est sûr que, pour nous, il y a trois conditions, évidemment, que mon collègue avait énumérées. Puis je vais les répéter. C’est que l’individu doit être canadien. L’individu doit être un créateur clé et que l’individu pour lequel le point est attribué est recruté par la production en question.

3369 Donc, pour nous, ces trois conditions sont remplies par les autres 14 postes clés de création. Et, pour nous, ce serait un peu discriminatoire pour les compositeurs de musique à l’image d’être le seul poste clé qui ne remplisse pas ces trois conditions‑là, d’autant plus que ça va créer un précédent si c’est adopté pour les autres postes clés de création.

3370 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Maintenant, la SCGC soutient votre proposition de 75 pour cent de musique canadienne dans une production. Pour ce qui est de la musique préenregistrée, ils ne recommandent pas comme tel d’accorder de points pour de la musique canadienne préenregistrée. Ils disent que ça n’a pas nécessairement un apport créatif au même titre que la musique composée.

3371 Je me demandais, qu’est‑ce que vous en pensez? Êtes‑vous d’accord avec ce positionnement?

3372 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Veux‑tu y aller, Jérôme? On va…

3373 M. PAYETTE : Bien, je peux… je ne sais pas si j’aurais formulé ça de cette façon‑là. On reconnaît que les compositeurs, là, ont une approche particulière et unique, là, en lien avec une production. Donc, c’est des contenus qui sont créés pour les productions. Mais si je peux… sur la question de partager le point compositeur de la musique avec la musique préexistante, c’est une idée qui est intéressante, mais qu’on n’est pas certains des effets.

3374 Ce qu’on risque de voir, c’est peut‑être que, les compositeurs, ils seraient remplacés par de la musique préexistante de librairie. Donc, on ne verrait pas nécessairement davantage de musique préexistante de type de synchro, comme on appelle dans le milieu, où c’est des artistes qui commercialisent leur musique sur des plateformes de musique ou des artistes qui sont plus ou moins connus qu’on verrait. On verrait plus de la musique de librairie, plus de la musique de fond, on a l’impression, que de vraiment voir ça.

3375 C’est pour ça que, notre proposition, dans les exigences de dépenses en musique préexistante est plus intéressante parce qu’on vient vraiment s’assurer que, en fait, on retire les bénéfices.

3376 Puis juste pour… la musique de librairie, ça coûte très peu cher à incorporer dans une production. En fait, c’est leur modèle d’affaires. C’est que ça ne coûte vraiment pas cher à mettre dans une production. Et eux, en fait, font des revenus quand c’est diffusé. On appelle ça en anglais un cue‑sheet business. Donc, c’est vraiment : quand c’est diffusé, ils vont toucher des revenus de la SOCAN puis d’autres sociétés de gestion.

3377 Donc, en ayant une approche basée sur les dépenses, comme ça coûte peu cher, 75 pour cent des dépenses canadiennes, ça serait principalement de la synchro, ce serait principalement, donc, de la musique qui comporte des artistes interprètes puis qui est commercialisée à l’extérieur des productions audiovisuelles. Donc, on viendrait chercher les bénéfices financiers, mais aussi la visibilité qui est intéressante quand ont est synchronisé dans un film ou une production audiovisuelle.

3378 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Je rajouterais même aussi, si vous voulez bien, que, dans le cas de la SPACQ‑AE, ça ferait en sorte que mes membres compétitionneraient entre eux, c’est‑à‑dire que j’aurais des compositeurs de musique de commande qui compétitionneraient contre mes membres qui œuvrent en chanson.

3379 Donc, pour nous, on réitère l’importance de garder le poste clé de création pour les compositeurs de musique. Évidemment, on appuie ce qu’on croit être l’objectif du Conseil, c’est‑à‑dire de soutenir une plus grande utilisation de musique canadienne préexistante dans les productions canadiennes. Cet objectif doit être considéré séparément de celui visant à encourager l’utilisation des compositeurs de musique canadiens et de musique originale.

3380 Donc, évidemment, atteindre le premier ne devrait pas se faire au détriment des compositeurs à l’imagine canadien.

3381 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Je comprends. Donc, vous séparez les deux questions, les points pour les compositeurs puis un 75 pour cent de musique. Ma collègue vous a posé toutes les questions à propos du 75 pour cent. Je comprends que vous avez assoupli votre position, comme l’a fait l’Adisq hier, d’ailleurs. C’est quoi la raison qui vous a amenés à présenter une position assouplie aujourd’hui sur cette question?

3382 M. PAYETTE : Pour permettre un peu justement qu’il y ait des productions qui, à l’occasion, ne respectent pas le 75 pour cent pour des raisons artistiques. Mais à tout le moins, on pense qu’il faut qu’il y ait un effet d’ensemble qui soit atteint. Donc, c’est pour ça que plutôt que chaque production doive atteindre l’exigence de dépenses de musique préexistante canadienne, on mettrait ça au niveau sur l’année du diffuseur avec lequel… ou le fonds avec lequel le CRTC… bien, sur lequel le CRTC a un pouvoir.

3383 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien.

3384 M. PAYETTE : Donc, soit dans une licence, une ordonnance ou dans une politique réglementaire relative aux fonds.

3385 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Donc, ce serait lié à la plateforme, c’est ça? Et non pas à la production.

3386 M. PAYETTE : Oui. Donc, eux, ils devraient s’assurer… Exactement. Ils devraient s’assurer, eux, dans l’année, dans tout ce qu’ils ont commandé, ils ont dit : « Écoutez, nous autres, on… le CRTC nous demande de favoriser la musique préexistante canadienne puis de voir, O.K., ce projet‑là, oui, on ne va pas atteindre le 75 pour cent, mais on va pouvoir se reprendre sur d’autres pour arriver à l’exigence à la fin. »

3387 Encore une fois, on est ouverts à trouver de la flexibilité. Mais on pense qu’il doit y avoir quelque chose quand même d’assez ferme pour soutenir la musique canadienne dans une production.

3388 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Maintenant, je vous amènerais sur la question de l’intelligence artificielle. Compte tenu de l’évolution de l’intelligence artificielle et de ses applications dans la création de contenu, est‑ce que son utilisation devrait être encadrée? Une question de base. Et, si oui, selon vous, de quelle façon?

3389 M. PAYETTE : Tu veux que j’y aille, Ariane?

3390 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Tu peux y aller en premier, si tu veux.

3391 M. PAYETTE : O.K. Écoutez, oui, c’est important. Donc, nous, on représente le secteur de la musique. Puis notre proposition que, nous, on fait, ce serait la musique canadienne préexistante telle que définie par le CRTC. Donc, on… C’est un autre sujet sur lequel vous traitez en parallèle, mais on pense, en fait, que de la musique canadienne ou de la musique qui serait encouragée en production audiovisuelle doit être écrite par des humains. Puis on pense donc qu’il faut continuer de baser la définition de pièces musicales canadiennes sur du travail de personnes.

3392 Puis, en accordant justement une place dans nos productions audiovisuelles et sur les plateformes de musique à la musique canadienne, on protège les créateurs, les artistes et le secteur de la musique francophone. Donc, c’est à travers la définition puis les exigences que vous allez mettre en place qu’on va réussir aussi à protéger la musique canadienne de l’intelligence artificielle.

3393 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Puis je rajouterais aussi que, évidemment, il faut tenir compte des objectifs et le décret d’instruction pour maximiser l’utilisation des ressources humaines canadiennes. Donc, c’est sûr que, nous, pour notre secteur, bien, l’utilisation de l’intelligence artificielle se fait présentement. Il y a vraiment une différence entre utilisation et substitution, comme je l’ai dit précédemment.

3394 Mais, évidemment, sans qu’il y ait un véritable exercice de compétence et de jugement de la part d’un créateur canadien, on ne peut pas attribuer un Canadien aux fins de satisfaire les critères de définition d’émissions canadiennes pour l’intelligence artificielle.

3395 Évidemment, il faut répondre à la définition juridique d’une œuvre originale au sens de la Loi sur le droit d’auteur, qui justement sous‑entend que les créateurs doivent être humains en se référant justement à la vie de l’auteur. Des termes qui sont juridiquement interprétés comme désignant des êtres humains. Donc, on sait que c’est inévitable, mais je pense qu’il y a des nuances à établir.

3396 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis si je vous posais… En fait, c’est une question que j’ai posée à beaucoup d’intervenants jusqu’ici, mais où est‑ce qu’on peut tracer la ligne entre ce qui est une bonne utilisation de l’IA et une mauvaise utilisation qui empiète sur la création? Avez‑vous pensé à comment tracer cette ligne de votre côté?

3397 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Pour l’instant, évidemment, les limites sont parfois floues. C’est sûr que c’est un sujet qui préoccupe le secteur et qui préoccupe plusieurs industries, pas seulement la musique. Donc, c’est sûr que c’est une évolution qui doit suivre juridiquement l’évolution technologique. Nous, de notre côté, c’est sûr que, en ce moment, l’IA sert d’outil. Mais pour tout ce qui est l’utilisation des œuvres, le consentement, le crédit, la compensation, pour nous, c’est un défi majeur de voir les œuvres utilisées contre le consentement de nos compositeurs.

3398 Donc, c’est un sujet qu’on doit continuer à surveiller. C’est sûr que, du côté des éditeurs, ils ont aussi des défis.

3399 M. PAYETTE : Oui. Si je peux juste rapidement dire, bien, cette question‑là, on compte l’aborder un peu plus en détail pour la musique dans l’audience, là, sur… qui va se pencher sur la définition de pièces musicales canadiennes. Mais on reconnaît que ça peut être utilisé comme un outil, mais il faut préserver le rôle créatif puis d’avoir une définition qui a plusieurs critères. Donc, voilà.

3400 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Parfait. Merci beaucoup. Je n’ai pas d’autres questions.

3401 LA PRÉSIDENTE : D’accord. Alors, merci beaucoup. Et peut‑être on peut vous laisser le mot final, s’il y a quelque chose à ajouter ou des messages clés. Merci.

3402 M. PAYETTE : Je peux juste rapidement dire que la musique et l’audiovisuel sont les deux piliers, à mon avis, de notre culture. Donc, c’est important de développer des synergies pour mieux travailler ensemble. Notre premier public, c’est vraiment les Canadiens. Puis une fois qu’on a une base, le Canada, on peut aussi bien sûr exporter. Mais je pense qu’aujourd’hui, c’est une première étape et c’est une très importante étape. Il faut faire une place davantage à la musique canadienne dans les productions audiovisuelles, mais il y aura aussi d’autres façons de collaborer entre le secteur de la musique et de l’audiovisuel. Je vous remercie.

3403 M^me CHARBONNEAU : Merci de nous avoir donné la chance de vous parler et de répondre à vos questions. Pour le secteur de la musique, je réitère l’importance de préserver le poste clé du compositeur de musique. C’est un rôle qui est important. C’est un rôle qui contribue énormément à une production audiovisuelle. Il ne faut pas mélanger les choses. La musique préexistante est importante.

3404 Et nous, évidemment, soutenons le Conseil et nos partenaires et les autres associations pour justement encourager l’utilisation de la musique préexistante canadienne. Ça fait partie aussi de nos membres à la SPACQ‑AE. Et, évidemment, on souhaite pouvoir continuer à évoluer dans ce secteur‑là. Je sais que le Conseil n’a pas un rôle très facile. C’est un défi de taille. Et nous demeurons disponibles pour tout complément d’information.

3405 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci encore et bon après‑midi.

3406 LA SECRÉTAIRE : J’inviterais maintenant Music Canada to come to the presentation table.

3407 When you are ready, please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

3408 MR. ROGERS: Thank you very much. My name is Patrick Rogers. I am the CEO of Music Canada.

3409 Good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

3410 Music Canada is the trade association for Canada’s major labels, who partner with leading Canadian performing artists to produce music that enriches many Canadian film and television productions.

3411 One of the strongest logistical pieces of these consultations has been the recognition of the differences between and the separation of the audiovisual and audio sectors. I look forward to returning in a few weeks for the market dynamics consultation and in the fall to discuss the future of music streaming in radio in Canada.

3412 But everything is better with music. Whether in the background or predominantly featured, music improves fall fairs, sporting events, dinner parties and, importantly, films and television shows. Your favourite movie scenes all have a soundtrack, an audible and emotional trigger that something awe‑inspiring is about to happen.

3413 The relationship has existed from the beginning of the medium. Even silent movies were often accompanied with live music playing along.

3414 It is in this context that Music Canada has participated in this very narrow sliver of your much larger consultation. And, again, I really appreciate the opportunity to share with you our thoughts on the proposed changes.

3415 Specifically, there are two points that I would like to highlight Music Canada and Canada’s major labels’ position on.

3416 The first is the support of Canadian performing artists to be recognized in the CRTC’s creative point system.

3417 The second is in response to questions put forward regarding AI.

3418 We support the CRTC’s goal of introducing greater flexibility into the creative point system by recognizing more of the creative positions involved in Canadian film and TV productions. But our concern is that the Commission’s proposed list leaves out the Canadian performing artists that are the voice of many Canadian film and TV soundtracks.

3419 Canadian performing artists should be considered a key creative position, eligible for a point under the CRTC’s point system. Adding performing artists would recognize the valuable contributions these creators make to the music that enriches film and TV productions.

3420 We believe this aligns nicely with the policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

3421 I would like to take a few moments to discuss why focusing on the performing artist is an improvement on the proposed focus on rights‑holders.

3422 First of all, all of the other positions listed in the Key Creative Point System are actual creative positions that do not reference rights or ownership. Instead, they are based on the creative person being Canadian.

3423 Second, it ignores the vital role the actual Canadian plays in the project. Instead, it places the significance of their business arrangement instead of their art.

3424 Third, our proposal would put performing artists on equal footing with music composers in the CRTC’s framework. In the CRTC’s proposal, music composers are appropriately considered Canadian based on their nationality, regardless of where their music publishing rights are held.

3425 Finally, our proposal would correct for the concern with the CRTC’s approach raised by several music groups that adding rights‑holder would allow productions to qualify for a point when they license music of a foreign creator from Canadian companies.

3426 Our proposal would incentivize the use of music by Canadian performing artists. This is a worthy exercise. We are happy to see the recognition and inclusion of recorded music in the proposal. I hope that you will take our recommended changes into consideration.

3427 The second part of the consultation relevant to the Canadian music industry is the subject of AI. I hope you can appreciate that when it comes to the future of AI in the music industry, I have enough to fill the day. There are important questions for policymakers both here in Canada and around the world that must be wrestled with and decided upon.

3428 Here are a few thoughts I would encourage you to include in your deliberations.

3429 Despite early narratives of AI being giant machine brains that require science fiction responses for science fiction technology, we are becoming increasingly comfortable with our understanding of AI as overwhelming computing power rather than a revolutionary creative force. This is especially true of generative AI.

3430 When we take away the excitement of the unknown, we are left with the fact that generative AI models have scraped the Internet for and ingested the world’s most famous songs. This includes the work of Canadians.

3431 Ultimately, this is what makes AI, especially generative AI, a copyright issue.

3432 Music Canada and our music industry allies around the world are working on behalf of human creativity with governments in order to make sure that policymakers like yourselves understand these concerns. At this time, we do not see a formal role for the CRTC in its current mandate but would of course welcome your efforts for human creativity and the licensing of music in legal ways.

3433 Thank you. I look forward to answering any of your questions.

3434 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for your submissions. I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott.

3435 I hope he starts with Everything is Better with Music.

3436 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I was going to start with a song. Maybe not everything is better with music.

3437 Your submission references composers, performers and rights‑holders. To start off, I was hoping you could just describe the Venn diagram of those three.

3438 How often is the performer or the composer also a rights‑holder?

3439 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Vice‑Chair for the question.

3440 I mean, I think how is not something that I think we measure, but it is all possible. I think the key to our submission is that when the recording artist is Canadian, that is what should count. That is what counts in the other key creative position criteria.

3441 You know, I think the CRTC deserves a lot of credit for looking for further flexibility for producers to include Canadian music and Canadian‑ness in the production. And I think Canadian recording artists, rather than their business arrangements, I think that makes total sense to us.

3442 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: In a situation where the performer is Canadian but the rights‑holder is not, we do allow for a situation where a Cancon point is given despite the Canadian associated with that point not receiving any financial compensation. Is that correct?

3443 MR. ROGERS: When I hear my favourite Canadian artist in the soundtrack, that is the value. That is what is important.

3444 At no point in my listening as a consumer or as a Canadian concerned about the cultural policy would I then say oh, I don’t believe they have the rights to that.

3445 I think the goal of this is to encourage further understanding and further discoverability and encourage movie production to play more Canadian artists. And if that is your goal, which is what is said in the document, then displaying the Canadian artist is more important than displaying their contractual background.

3446 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Is that benefit quantifiable in any way? Do you have any data or examples of placing a value to the Canadian performer?

3447 What’s it worth to a Canadian performer to have their song in a hit show, for example? Is that quantifiable or not?

3448 MR. ROGERS: I have a very recent anecdotal example, and that is last week we just inducted Sum 41 into the Canadian Music Hall of Fame. One of their biggest tipping point moments was when they were not included in Canadian film, but they were included in the global blockbuster of Spider‑Man, and they became a global ‑‑ a Canadian band became a global hit thanks to the synchronization of their selling to that piece.

3449 So I don’t think at any point when that happened, people were looking into their rights. I think they were listening to their song and loving the song and the band.

3450 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: You are one of a few people who noted that the proposed treatment of the music point is different from some of the other key creatives in the sense that it’s a rights‑holder as opposed to the worker.

3451 But does the difference in how music is treated in kind of that licensing process justify differential treatment? If I’m the lead make‑up artist, the value that I extract is in kind of the pay cheque I get at the end of the day. There is no mechanism for kind of those long‑term ongoing residuals, for lack of a better term.

3452 So is there something inherent in the way music is licensed that does justify some form of differential treatment compared to some of the other key creatives?

3453 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Vice‑Chair for the question, and I appreciate the effort to dig into this.

3454 I look at that list, and I note the composer’s rights of an arrangement in terms of their publishing rights is not considered by the CRTC. Therefore, I would say that it is as important to the Canadian composer as it is to the Canadian performer.

3455 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I have just got one more question before I turn it back to the Chair.

3456 A few parties, those having the flexibility of using either pre‑existing music or commissioning composed, from a public policy perspective, could you talk about the trade‑offs of those two alternatives? Is there one that’s better for certain stakeholders? Is the other better for others? Who wins and who loses under either commissioning new works or licensing old works?

3457 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Vice‑Chair for the question.

3458 I think all of the questions today are trade‑offs, and I think there are winners and losers in all of these decisions.

3459 These processes are a great reminder of how deep into the industry the CRTC digs into, both on film and television and in music.

3460 Obviously, the creation of new music generates an opportunity. I don’t think we would deny that.

3461 But I think in the streaming era, the opportunity to sync songs to film and television productions has generated hundreds, if not thousands, beyond the couple of dozen that we often cite as being so important and the long tail of streaming that allows for that.

3462 If I am watching, you know, something on a streaming service and I like the sound of that, I don’t need to go to the record store and go find it and only find out that the record store doesn’t have it, and that it’s not available. I can turn on my phone and go to a streaming site and find it right away and contribute to the success of that.

3463 So, there are absolutely trade‑offs, but I would not attempt to weigh them off against each other.

3464 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much, Madam Chair. Those are my questions.

3465 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will go to the Vice‑Chair, Broadcasting.

3466 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Mr. Rogers. Nice to see you.

3467 MR. ROGERS: Good afternoon.

3468 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: I take your point about all of this being related to copyright, but copyright is inherent to everything that we do here in this particular hearing because it’s about where the money goes and where the money doesn’t go. So, that’s probably why we are insisting on trying to figure out exactly where it fits into the equation.

3469 How do you think your proposal would support emerging musical artist?

3470 I take your example where, you know, a blockbuster uses a pre‑recorded soundtrack from a Canadian artist, but it’s most likely of an already known Canadian artist, a Bryan Adams or Barenaked Ladies, etc.

3471 What happens to the lesser‑known emerging artists? How do they fit into the equation if there isn’t a requirement for online streamers to actually turn to them to get their works on their own audiovisual production?

3472 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Vice‑Chair for the opportunity to talk about this and point out that you taught me much of what I know about intellectual property when we worked together at Heritage. So, if I have any mistakes, I’ll have to come back to you and check with you again.

3473 I am not a film producer, but if I was, I would like to think that I would pick the best song for my film production. I think that would be the goal of this.

3474 I think a lot of this process quickly becomes ones and zeros and spreadsheets and categorizations, but at the end of the day, whether it’s film and television or music, we are talking about the creative pursuit of this.

3475 So, if it is a Bryan Adams’ song that is perfect or if it is a song that has yet to be commercialized, I think that should be left up to the film maker in that case.

3476 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: How do we incentivize that, because it’s part of our public policy objectives. If we want to make sure that we have a robust industry where new people can come in and actually find their sunlight, how do we make that work if there isn’t any particular requirements or incentives for the big players to turn to the lesser‑known emerging artists, including francophone artists, indigenous artists? These are all part of our public objectives and certainly inherent to what we’re discussing here in this particular hearing.

3477 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Vice‑Chair for the opportunity to talk about this, because I’m going to be back in a month’s time at the market dynamics.

3478 There’s never been more sunlight. There’s never been more opportunity for artists to be discovered. There’s never been less gatekeepers in the music industry. There’s never been more opportunity to have your music put out in either social media or in digital platforms. There’s never been less people to tell you to stop.

3479 So, that perfect song is out there for the film producer, and I would encourage them to go find it.

3480 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: So, the market will figure it out. There isn’t a particular name for a regulated approach to encourage ‑‑

3481 MR. ROGERS: I think when I come to our audio piece, Music Canada is very supportive of continued. Where things are limited, like in radio, we are supportive of emerging artists having to be chosen by people who choose that.

3482 In film and television, again, I would tend to go back to the place of I would like to make sure that the film maker, the Canadian film maker, has the opportunity to pick the song that they think fits best.

3483 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. One more question, if I am allowed.

3484 Around AI, you’ve heard some of the intervenors, including the previous ones, about the fact that it needs probably to be quite regulated as to safeguard from a malicious use or ill‑intended use of AI replacing the work of human creators.

3485 From your point of view, how should the CRTC approach the use of AI in the context that we’re in right now? Or should we let the market figure it out?

3486 What are your views on that?

3487 MR. ROGERS: I thank the Vice‑Chair for the question.

3488 Ultimately, we are in a fantastically interesting period in this. In Music Canada we talk about the rules and the tools. So, there are amazing tools out there that we are really excited about that help human creators and artists advance their creative project, to finish songs that otherwise could not be finished due to a death in the band, to restore someone’s voice who’s lost it due to a medical emergency.

3489 These things are fantastic, and we look forward to the further advancement and innovation of the technology.

3490 When it comes to generative AI, solely generated AI content is a risk to human creativity And we would encourage regulators to keep an eye on that to make sure it’s not swamping out human content. And it should not be recognized as Canadian.

3491 But that is something that our industry is working its way through. I think our members are very interested in supporting the humans and not terminator.

3492 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much.

3493 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for your submissions and the discussion. We would like to turn things back over to you for any concluding thoughts.

3494 MR. ROGERS: I am ultimately left with the same position I was left in when I appeared in Phase 1. The project you are taking on is truly a once‑in‑a‑generation regulatory process. You are reaching into places that historically we have chosen ‑‑ we haven’t not just not done it, we have chosen not to do it.

3495 And as you do that, I think there’s so much weight on this for you to make sure that you understand how it works and how it is working now, where it is failing, in addition to the stakeholders who come to you looking for how they would like it to work, how they would like a process to come about.

3496 Music Canada’s ultimate goal has been to be an honest broker throughout this process. My companies are the leading commercial members, commercial music makers in the world, and they are proud Canadian players with offices full of Canadians making Canadian music for the Canadian market and the world.

3497 I hope that you will call upon us throughout this process to help inform, however we can.

3498 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. And it sounds like we will be seeing you again soon.

3499 MR. ROGERS: Perfect.

3500 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

3501 MR. ROGERS: Thank you.

3502 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

3503 I will now ask the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada to come to the presentation table.

3504 Please introduce yourself when you are ready, and you may begin.

Présentation

3505 MS. WERNEBURG: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff.

3506 My name is Julia Werneburg, and I am Legal Counsel at SOCAN.

3507 SOCAN is Canada’s largest rights management organization. We represent over 200,000 Canadian music publishers, song writers and composers, including screen composers.

3508 We license tens of thousands of organizations and businesses to play and reproduce music across Canada, including traditional broadcasters and online audiovisual streaming platforms. We also collect and distribute royalties to our members and clients, as well as to the millions of creators we represent, through reciprocal agreements with international rights management organizations.

3509 I’d like to start my substantive remarks by stating that SOCAN agrees with the positions previously put forward in this proceeding by the Screen Composers Guild of Canada, SPACQ, and ACCORD.

3510 We are here today to emphasize that audiovisual productions should be encouraged both to hire Canadian screen composers and to use Canadian preexisting recorded music. However, importantly, as you have heard many times today, encouraging the use of Canadian prerecorded music should not come at the expense of encouraging the hiring of a Canadian screen composer for a program. The two goals should not be pitted against each other in the definition of a Canadian program. It doesn’t have to be a zero‑sum game, particularly when the audiovisual market is already a highly competitive and challenging space for Canadian music.

3511 SOCAN licenses the performance of both original composed scores and prerecorded songs used in audiovisual productions. SOCAN’s data for audiovisual licenses demonstrates that the amount of Canadian music used in programs that are broadcast on audiovisual streaming platforms in Canada is extremely low. In 2023, music written by SOCAN members represented less than 6 percent of royalties collected from these platforms.

3512 The proposal set out by the Commission in the Notice of Consultation would represent a partial shift, from incentives for the creation of new original composed music for Canadian audiovisual programs, to incentives for the use of prerecorded or ‘library music’, regardless of the nationality of the songwriters, composers, or performers of that prerecorded music.

3513 This proposal would not present any advantage for the Canadian music industry. While we are supportive of finding means to support both the composition of Canadian original scores and the use of prerecorded music written by Canadians, the Commission’s proposal achieve neither of these goals.

3514 Rather, we ask that the Commission use every tool in its toolbox to encourage the use of Canadian music, and the involvement of Canadian screen composers, in audiovisual productions. To that end, we have two core submissions.

3515 First, that maintaining the existing key creative point for a Canadian composer is critical. That ought not to be changed.

3516 Second, if the Commission wants to encourage the use of preexisting, prerecorded music in Canadian programs, we would, for example, support the creation of a new requirement that would require at least 75 percent of the music budget of a Canadian audiovisual program go towards Canadian prerecorded music, where practicable. You have heard this from other organizations today, and we support them as well.

3517 This would allow the Commission to encourage the use of Canadian music in audiovisual programs, while also ensuring that screen composers continue to be hired for those productions. It would also ensure that Canadians are not competing against each other, pitting composed music against prerecorded music.

3518 SOCAN appreciates the opportunity to present this information today, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

3519 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for being here with us today. I know we have a number of questions, so I will turn things over to Commissioner Paquette, to kick things off.

3520 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hello, Ms. Werneburg. Some intervenors stated that allocating a point to Canadian rightsholders for preexisting or prerecorded music would increase the discoverability of Canadian music. I understand that you don’t necessarily agree with this statement. What are your concerns about the impact on music creators if these copyright holders are acknowledged as key creative positions?

3521 MS. WERNEBURG: Thank you for the question. I think there are two issues with the idea of adding music that is owned by Canadian rightsholders to the music point under the current system.

3522 The first is that it takes away from the incentive to hire a Canadian composer. That point should be left alone rather than splitting it into an either/or scenario where a production can qualify either from hiring a composer or from licensing Canadian music. So, that’s the first point.

3523 The second point that’s the problem with this suggestion is that Canadian rightsholders could include a Canadian subsidiary of a major international label where no Canadian is ultimately benefitting in a significant way from the licensing of that work, so, and the money would mostly flow internationally. So, for SOCAN, we license pretty much all music played in Canada on the online audiovisual streaming services, but when we collect money that belongs to a Canadian subsidiary of a major label, that money goes to that subsidiary and then flows internationally, typically. So, it’s not retained in Canada.

3524 So, in order to encourage the use of and hiring of Canadians in these creative positions, it makes no sense to focus on the rightsholder. It would be preferable to focus on the composer or the writer.

3525 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, should I understand that, even if the criterion would be rightsholders for preexisting or prerecorded Canadian music, it’s still an error to allow the point, and you wouldn’t support such a suggestion?

3526 MS. WERNEBURG: So, we strongly feel that the Canadian composer point should be left alone, with no addition. However, we do support any other incentives that the Commission would be interested in implementing that would encourage music written by Canadians, not necessarily for the score specifically but for prerecorded music or other types of music, in a separate incentive. So, that’s why we have suggested as an example the 75 percent spending requirement where a production would have to spend at least 75 percent of their music budget for prerecorded music, on music written by Canadians or that would qualify as a Canadian musical selection as the CRTC will determine in the parallel proceeding.

3527 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And regarding this 75 percent requirement, well, we’ve just heard from L’APEM and from la SPACQ‑AE, who changed a bit their position. It’s not anymore 75 percent of the production, but more 75 percent of a global budget. What is SOCAN’s position on this?

3528 MS. WERNEBURG: SOCAN is supportive of any incentive that involves the playing of more Canadian‑owned music, ultimately ‑‑ and music written by Canadians, ultimately. In our written submissions, we suggested 75 percent budge requirement should be tied to a production, but we’re certainly open to more flexible measures that would achieve the same results.

3529 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And SPACQ‑AE and APEM also made this recommendation when they stated that the Commission should use the MAPL definition to determine whether a song is Canadian, and confirm the use of Canadian music by consulting the musical content report submitted to SOCAN. Can you please comment on this proposal? Is this something that is feasible?

3530 MS. WERNEBURG: I’m sorry, could you repeat the part about the Canadian content report?

3531 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: They say the Commission should use the MAPL definition to determine whether a song is Canadian, and confirm the use of Canadian music by consulting the musical content report submitted to SOCAN.

3532 MS. WERNEBURG: So, on the first point, regarding the definition ‑‑ the Canadian musical selection, SOCAN is participating in the consultation regarding Canadian audio CanCon requirements and we are broadly supportive of any definition that respects the role of songwriters and composers as per our submissions in that consultation.

3533 With respect to tracking the use of music, certainly in audiovisual productions they are required to submit cue sheets which list the music being played in a particular production, and SOCAN often gets copies of that so we can track that. But I’m not entirely clear on how it would relate to this consultation.

3534 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And last question, again on the 75 percent requirement. This would go in a certain way against a certain degree of flexibility that we are looking for as a Commission. In your opinion, can you tell us why does this measure seem necessary in the current context?

3535 MS. WERNEBURG: This measure is one option that we could see as being effective in encouraging the use of Canadian written music, but we realize that this may not be the only solution and that it may need to be more flexible in some cases, to encourage artistic choices alongside the use of Canadian music. So, as the Screen Composers Guild of Canada mentioned earlier today, perhaps an exception could be applied in situations where the storyline of an audiovisual production requires the playing of more foreign music than Canadian, or perhaps as APEM and SPACQ mentioned, it could be based on global output or global broadcasting of programs by a particular entity.

3536 So, we’re certainly open to flexibility there, but at the end of the day, the important thing is that more Canadian music is played in audiovisual productions and that more Canadians are able to discover Canadian music.

3537 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you very much. No more questions.

3538 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.

3539 Let’s go to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

3540 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Hi. Glad to see SOCAN participating in this hearing. I do understand you’ll be participating also to the audio policy hearings, so I’m looking forward to that.

3541 Some years ago, an emerging artist from Montreal called Patrick Watson had a great hit ‑‑ it was called ‘The Great Escape’ ‑‑ on Grey’s Anatomy, which was primetime television in the US, and I think that’s probably what launches international careers.

3542 So, my question is about discoverability and how audiovisual works can actually be useful for the discoverability and the exportability of homegrown Canadian music. And I’m wondering what your thoughts were on that particular relationship, and whether our current regulatory regime supports that or, on the contrary, creates obstacles ‑‑ makes it more challenging? So, that’s my first question.

3543 And my second question is whether there is an opportunity to reflect about distribution rights as well ‑‑ domestic distribution rights versus international distribution rights. Should that be part of the conversation around establishing or facilitating partnerships in between Canadian players and international streaming platforms? So, I know it’s a lot, but you do what you can. Thank you.

3544 MS. WERNEBURG: Thank you for the question. On the first point, SOCAN is certainly supportive of any measures that get Canadian music listened to by the broadest audience possible, and audiovisual services, whether traditional broadcasting or online, are certainly one way that people from everywhere discover new music. And as in the example of Patrick Watson that you raised, certainly for SOCAN a significant portion of our revenue comes from royalties relating to audiovisual streams or broadcasts, and we very much recognize the importance of it as a tool not only to create revenue for our members, but also to get them discovered and to launch their careers. So, in that context, the work of the Commission is extremely important in ensuring that there is a market for Canadian works, Canadian songs, going forward ‑‑ and Canadian scores from screen composers.

3545 On the second point, SOCAN isn’t broadly involved in distribution rights. Those are usually negotiated by other players in the market. So, I can’t really speak to that today.

3546 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much.

3547 We will go over to Commissioner Naidoo.

3548 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thanks for being here today.

3549 I have a question on AI. You were here, sitting in the audience, when Music Canada was just up, and you probably heard them say that they consider AI to be a tool that can help creativity, not necessarily substitute it. So, but they went on to say that generative AI ‑‑ they see it differently. They say in their view it’s a copyright issue. They say generative AI should not be recognized as being Canadian, and I’m wondering what your thoughts are on all of that.

3550 MS. WERNEBURG: Well, thank you for the question. I am broadly in agreement that Canadian content should not be a hundred percent AI‑generated. To qualify as Canadian content, a work should be a work in the copyright sense, which means that it’s the product of the skill and judgment of an author, and an author has to be a person. So, I believe that the importance of supporting Canadian content is to support Canadians and Canadian authors and creatives. So, I am in alignment with Music Canada on that point.

3551 When it comes to generative AI versus AI‑assisted outputs, the line is somewhat murky at present, certainly, but the copyright jurisprudence can give us some guidance on that point. And I think that, at the end of the day, if a work is primarily the result of skill and judgment of an author, it’s protected by copyright; it can qualify as Canadian content. If it’s not ‑‑ if it’s a hundred percent generated by AI, there is no real benefit to promoting it in our national context.

3552 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for answering that.

3553 That’s all I have.

3554 THE CHAIRPERSON: So, we would like to turn things back over to you for any concluding remarks from SOCAN. Thank you.

3555 MS. WERNEBURG: Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to present to you today, and I would like to leave you with the key point of our presentation ‑‑ is really just the importance of maintaining the screen composer point on its own, and that any additional incentives for the use of prerecorded, preexisting library music should be kept separate.

3556 Thank you very much.

3557 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for being here with us this afternoon.

3558 THE SECRETARY: We will take a ten‑minute break and be back at 2:05. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 13 h 52

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 08

3559 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentation of Indigenous Screen Office. Please introduce yourself, and you may begin. One second, we are not hearing the sound in the room.

‑‑‑ Discussion officieuse

3560 THE SECRETARY: So please introduce yourself, and you may begin. Thank you.

Présentation

3561 MS. SWANSON: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, members of the Commission, and Commission staff. Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today.

3562 This public hearing is monumentally important for Indigenous narrative sovereignty and Indigenous peoples in Canada. At stake is the accountability and investment by Canadian broadcasters and foreign streamers that will ensure a future for authentic Indigenous and Canadian storytelling.

3563 My name is Kerry Swanson. I am the CEO of the Indigenous Screen Office and a citizen of Michipicoten First Nation. I have worked in the Indigenous creative sector for over two decades. I have seen firsthand the incredible growth of the Indigenous screen industry, particularly in the last six years.

3564 Today, Indigenous stories and histories are finally being told from the perspectives of Indigenous peoples, and Canada is a better country for it. Indigenous producers have ownership and control over their stories and are building companies, a necessity for economic reconciliation in our sector. More Indigenous‑led content is being green‑lit than ever before, shows like CTV’s Acting Good and Crave’s Don’t Even, both shot in Winnipeg, and the CBC/APTN/Netflix groundbreaking show North of North, shot in Iqaluit and also funded by ISO and CMF.

3565 Indigenous key creatives are being hired for leading Indigenous and non‑Indigenous productions. Our content is travelling the world with cross‑platform licensing deals, international festival premieres and prestigious awards at home and abroad.

3566 And Indigenous women are leading the way, as demonstrated by their representing more than 50 per cent of ISO production funding year after year. A case in point is Little Bird, a drama series and Program of National Interest, led by Indigenous showrunner Jennifer Podemski, that tells an authentic Indigenous story about the Sixties Scoop, a still little‑known trauma in Canadian history. This was a co‑production between APTN and Bell/Crave, with investment in training from ISO. This collaboration made Canadian Screen Awards history with 13 wins, the most ever by a series. The show was awarded at MIPCOM and was licensed by PBS, a testament to the global appeal and opportunities for Indigenous stories from Canada.

3567 Data shows that since the ISO’s inception, support for independently produced Indigenous content has grown exponentially. For instance, a recent Nordicity report showed that funding for Indigenous productions nearly doubled in one year, increasing from approximately $16 million in 2019/20 to $30.9 million in 2020/21.

3568 These results are possible because Indigenous peoples have persevered and because government, through regulation, and industry leaders have finally recognized that Indigenous stories on screen are an urgent and necessary part of the country’s culture and the healing and reconciliation process. Audiences want these stories, and that benefits the entire Canadian screen industry.

3569 There is still so much work to be done to meaningfully support Indigenous storytelling. The ISO and the Indigenous sector are historically underfunded, and our dedicated production funds are highly oversubscribed. Significant investment is still needed to correct the inequities of the past and to propel Indigenous producers and creators forward. To achieve this, increased funding for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis content is essential.

3570 The ISO is extremely concerned about the discussion at this hearing to eliminate the PNI rules for at‑risk dramas, feature films and long‑form documentaries. These programming genres are critical vehicles for Indigenous creators to share their stories, experiences, and cultures with Indigenous and non‑Indigenous audiences. It is through this type of content that Indigenous children have their cultural values, traditions, histories, and languages reflected to back to them on screen. The loss of the PNI requirements will have a devastating and debilitating impact on the Indigenous screen sector.

3571 The express language of the newly revised Broadcasting Act clearly states that Canadian broadcasters and streamers have a duty to support Indigenous productions, Indigenous points of view, and the revitalization of Indigenous languages, many of which are at risk, as recently affirmed by UNESCO.

3572 The ISO also calls on the Commission to recognize the significance of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that states:

“Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages and to have access to all forms of non‑indigenous media without discrimination.”

3573 In light of all of the above, the following are the ISO’s recommendations for a stronger, more inclusive, and updated programming framework for Canadian and Indigenous audiovisual storytelling.

3574 First, the ISO supports the Commission’s preliminary position that an overall CPE obligation should be placed on Canadian broadcasters and foreign streamers. A portion of this money should be earmarked to support independently produced Canadian Indigenous programming. We suggest the Commission consider 10 per cent of overall CPE as a starting point.

3575 Second, as part of the overall CPE, traditional broadcasters should contribute 0.5 per cent of their previous year’s revenues to the ISO, similar to the obligation imposed on online undertakings in 2024.

3576 Third, the Commission should establish a minimum PNI obligation for broadcasters and streamers. We also propose that a portion of that spending be earmarked for Indigenous creators, for example, 10 per cent.

3577 And finally, broadcasters and streamers must be incentivized to work with APTN to ensure that our national Indigenous broadcaster has premiere windowing rights to leading Indigenous content in recognition for their role in fostering Indigenous talent.

3578 With respect to modernizing the definition of Canadian programming, we reiterate the importance of ensuring a clear distinction between Canadian and Indigenous content because narrative sovereignty relies on Indigenous ownership and control over Indigenous IP.

3579 The definition of Canadian program will have an impact on Indigenous producers and content creators. The current 10‑point system works well for the majority of Indigenous productions; however, we recommend that exceptions are permitted for Indigenous productions where shared cultural and linguistic groups are divided by national borders.

3580 We recommend that any changes to the points test for Canadian‑defined projects be flexible enough to serve the needs of each type of genre while prioritizing the significant use of Canadian elements in the varied requirements for each genre. We support adding showrunner to the points list, but not at the expense of directors and writers, which would undermine Indigenous narrative sovereignty.

3581 Lastly, the revenues and programming expenditures of broadcasting undertakings and streamers should be made public, at the very least in aggregate. Transparency is critical to accountability, and it allows stakeholders to track progress, evaluate outcomes, and ensure contributions are supporting Indigenous and Canadian content as intended.

3582 Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. We look forward to working with the Commission to ensure Indigenous stories are supported and celebrated as an essential component of Canada’s broadcasting future. There is incredible momentum taking place in the Indigenous production sector, and this is something we can all be proud of. Funding is still urgently needed to continue this progress and to further economic reconciliation for the first peoples of Canada.

3583 Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

3584 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to the ISO for your written submissions and also for appearing before us today. I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott to start the questioning for the Commission. Thank you.

3585 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you, Chair.

3586 And thank you for joining us. I wanted to start with the issue of IP. So you proposed that for Indigenous content, a project’s IP must be at least 51 per cent owned by Indigenous people. Could you speak a little bit more about the importance of IP ownership between Indigenous people both from an economic reconciliation perspective as well as the cultural significance?

3587 MS. SWANSON: Yes, absolutely. The necessity of Indigenous ownership over IP is, as you said, both cultural and financial. So the ISO was created in response to an industry that exploited Indigenous stories for far too long. And it is only through ownership over those stories that we can express our actual sovereignty through sovereignty on screen in storytelling.

3588 Indigenous people often have a very ‑‑ stories are often coming from lived experience, from community‑based ownership models, and there’s a real care and responsibility that comes along with the territory of telling those stories in so many cases.

3589 And of course, in the financial imperative, we need to support Indigenous people’s ability to build companies in this industry and to have an economic foothold in a very competitive industry. And it is only through the ownership of IP that we’re able to do that.

3590 And I also want to add that our model of 51 per cent ownership is keeping in mind the flexibility needed to be realistic in working in this industry. And it does allow Indigenous peoples to partner with other production companies, with other partners in order to make the content. But it does ensure that that creative and financial control rest with the Indigenous person.

3591 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: You predicted my next question almost perfectly because I did want to ask how you would respond to the view from some streamers that if we’re too rigid on IP ownership, we might actually be undermining some of the models that do rely on a certain flexibility. So but it sounds like your view is that the 51 per cent does allow adequate flexibility ‑‑

3592 MS. SWANSON: Yes.

3593 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT:  ‑‑ for projects to move forward?

3594 MS. SWANSON: Yes, exactly. So we have been flexible. We’ve looked at the landscape, and we’re realistic about what it takes to get content made and what the business model is. So I think at the very least they can meet us halfway and be flexible themselves.

3595 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you. I wanted to turn to PNI and programs at risk. So you referenced specifically the importance of drama, feature film, and documentary to Indigenous creators. But are there other forms of content that are at even greater risk? I’m thinking of things like news. So I know it’s tough to kind of compare the importance of one to another, but are the genres you’ve flagged really the most at risk and/or the most important? Or are they just among many?

3596 MS. SWANSON: No, the content we have flagged in this regard is related to the content that we fund at ISO. We don’t fund news content, and so we will leave that to our colleagues at APTN to address in their submission, as they have done.

3597 Of course, Indigenous language production as well could be included in under that category. But those are the genres that we support. That is the content that is really gaining traction in our burgeoning Indigenous green sector. And to sort of cut us off at the knees at this point in time would be really devastating. And so that is why I specified those particular areas.

3598 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. Because it does set up almost a funny question where like you’ve flagged a number of really great success stories. So is it a challenge to make the case that these are the areas of greatest need if in fact we are already seeing success there? Like are there market forces at play that reduce the need for us to intervene specifically in these genres? Or do we ‑‑

3599 MS. SWANSON: No, I don’t think so ‑‑

3600 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT:  ‑‑ is it kind of a double‑down argument that you’re making?

3601 MS. SWANSON: Yes, exactly. I think we are just starting to see success, so why would you undermine that success by changing the rules that fostered that success? And it does remind me of when the Broadcasting Act had the language that Indigenous content would be supported as resources became available. I think the industry has demonstrated that without regulation, they’re not going to support the content necessarily. And we cannot rely on market forces to determine the direction of our cultural expression, our Indigenous cultural expression, in our case. It doesn’t make sense to me to dismantle something that is just starting to demonstrate its success for Indigenous peoples.

3602 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Great. The last topic I wanted to cover is kind of the funding machinery. So I understand that you’ve proposed earmarking funds within the CPE amount and I think within the earmark having some of that, you know, dedicated to ISO funding.

3603 What would be the outcome if, rather than a dedicated ISO contribution, if streamers and broadcasters were just left the flexibility to either commission work directly or put finances into a fund? Does it have to be one or the other? Can we leave some flexibility to the people paying in?

3604 MS. SWANSON: I think a minimum contribution is required at the very least. If you’re talking about incentives or a different or separate mechanism, I don’t think it should come at the cost of having minimum requirements. And as we’ve said at the previous hearing and through our previous submissions, the ISO, as the Indigenous funding body for Indigenous‑made content, has been ‑‑ we’re new to the system. But Indigenous people have been left out of the system, and this is a correction to that. And it’s a necessary correction.

3605 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. And last question from me I think is a quick one. We’ve heard a number of people propose that contributions in the form of support for training for promotion should also be counted towards CPE levels. What are your thoughts on that in general, and do you have any specific suggestions on how that should be accounted for, if at all?

3606 MS. SWANSON: Yes, we do. Again, not at the expense, but we do support incentives. And they have been ‑‑ we have been successful in receiving different kinds of incentive funding. For example, one of our first funds was through Netflix as a result of the Heritage mandated funding, and we did target that for a training program. It was very successful.

3607 We’re very committed to training as part of our ongoing mandate of fostering the next generation of screen storytellers. But it cannot come at the expense of the production of content and what we see on screen. And it can’t come at the expense of Indigenous producers and production companies being able to work within the system and have a real voice within the system.

3608 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much. Madam Chair, those are all my questions.

3609 THE CHAIRPERSON: Great. Thank you. It looks like everybody has questions for the ISO. We’ll go over to Commissioner Paquette. Thank you.

3610 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hello, Ms. Swanson. You propose to give APTN the first window of exploitation on Indigenous content. APTN on its site suggests that the Commission does not impose specific exhibition or expenditure requirements relating to the Indigenous production to non‑Indigenous services. APTN is concerned that if the Commission were to impose specific exhibition requirements on all services, this could lead to direct competition for Indigenous services.

3611 And I would like to have your view on this proposal and position from APTN. I guess my question is if we had to prioritize, and I’m aware that it’s not a binary choice, but is the best approach to support the Indigenous media by granting them a form of monopoly or first window on Indigenous content or support that presents an integration of Indigenous production and content on multiple platforms?

3612 MS. SWANSON: Right. And for that, I will defer to APTN and support their position.

3613 I think really what we’re saying is it was not that they had to have first window in all Indigenous content, but to somehow recognize the very important role that APTN has played and continues to play in fostering the talent, in putting in the work at the grassroots level, at the emerging level to foster Indigenous content, and then being shut out when that content becomes successful or when it becomes more competitive in the market as we’re seeing more and more in the sector. As Indigenous content is reaching audiences, people are excited about it. And so I think it’s really important to just find a balance there so that APTN is not shut out of the success that they have been so important and so integral to fostering. And that’s really our key message.

3614 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And what about Uvagut TV, which is another broadcaster? Should they have a form of priority also?

3615 MS. SWANSON: It’s a good question, and I would have to defer to Uvagut on that one. They have very specific content that they are fostering, specific Inuit content. They’re very important in supporting Inuit language content, which is critically important, as we’ve said. So anything that can support Indigenous language content. But they have a specific audience, and often that content is not necessarily the same as what we’re going to see in on the larger networks or on the foreign streaming services.

3616 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you.

3617 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. Let’s go to Commissioner Naidoo.

3618 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thanks for being with us today.

3619 The Commission currently has CPE credits in place for content produced by Indigenous peoples, as you know. But I’m wondering, in your view, have these credits achieved the intended result of incentivizing production of Indigenous content? And if not, what other types of incentives should the Commission be looking at to achieve that?

3620 MS. SWANSON: I think those incentives really do help and they have helped. And our recommendation is not to remove those incentives, to keep those incentives in place.

3621 I think other incentives might be support, as we mentioned, specifically for training. And we haven’t really dug into the flexibility that will be available in the funding allocation determined in the first round, but I think there are incentives related to discoverability and ensuring that audience access to the content ‑‑ that the content is actually marketed and getting to audiences.

3622 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, then. Just it seems fluid for me to just, you know, follow up on that. How do you think that we should be supporting discoverability of Indigenous content?

3623 MS. SWANSON: Yeah, so ISO is already making some investments. Of course, you know our budget is not huge. It’s 13 million a year. And we do allocate money for marketing and promotion. And we’re also working with our colleagues at Téléfilm and CMF to dig into alternative distribution and distribution methods that can support Canadian content more broadly.

3624 In ISO’s case, it’s really important not just that Indigenous content reaches broad audiences, Canadian audiences and global audiences, which of course we want, but also that it reaches Indigenous audiences. It’s really important for Indigenous communities to have themselves and their lives reflected back on screen, as we’ve talked about. And I think we all understand why that’s important.

3625 So we support not just content on streaming platforms. Like obviously, we support community screenings and impact producing, so people building educational materials around the work and going into communities and alternate venues to talk about the work in a more meaningful way.

3626 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for that.

3627 THE CHAIRPERSON: Vice‑Chair?

3628 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Ms. Swanson. Happy to see you here.

3629 I just want to ask about North of North. Of course, you’re not the only intervenor who has spoken about the great success of that particular endeavour, which is both a domestic Canadian partnership but also an international partnership. So I’m curious to know, in your view, what’s the recipe, and whether it’s a flexible IP management, you know, with certain rights for the domestic distribution, certain rights for the international distribution being part of the mix, and what role it has played in making the project palatable to Netflix?

3630 MS. SWANSON: Right. Well, thank you for asking that question. This is a project I love talking about. And when I first appeared before the CRTC, I talked about the studio that we funded in Iqaluit. And it is Red Marrow studio. They led the charge on building that studio. And it was actually the impetus for them to make the case to be able to end up shooting that show in Iqaluit, which is a huge challenge logistically and geographically. But they shot it in Iqaluit.

3631 And I think that that show is really an example of how we can all work together to make something incredible happen here in Canada that is distinctly Indigenous and distinctly Inuit and distinctly Canadian and something that audiences are obviously really responding to in a big way.

3632 So that show was first green‑lit by CBC. It’s an APTN show. Netflix came on later and really got it to that place, of course, with the budget that they were able to, you know, show this incredibly high‑quality series on screen. But also, it’s important to note that ISO and CMF were also funders on that project, and it’s really an example of the entire ecosystem working together to make a show like that.

3633 And I just want to say, in regards to what I was talking about regarding APTN earlier, one of the writers was ‑‑ one of the showrunners, the co‑showrunners, was really fostered at APTN. She had a show there. And the other showrunner came from a documentary background. She made long‑form documentaries. And it is that ecosystem, all of that support that happened prior to leading up to that show, that resulted in having a show like that on our screens.

3634 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: But it had to be palatable to Netflix. So what made it palatable? What piqued the interest from a commercial point of view? Because, you know, it’s business for them, I suppose, so ‑‑

3635 MS. SWANSON: Absolutely. But it’s Indigenous stories are universal. And this is a great example of a good story. It’s a good story, and that’s why we’re story first. I mean, our production fund is called the Story Fund, because a good story is going to get the funding. It’s going to travel. It’s going to reach audiences. And it’s going to bring organizations like Netflix on board.

3636 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: So was IP an important part of the conversation?

3637 MS. SWANSON: I think so. I mean, you have to talk to the producers about the conversations they had with Netflix. We’re not privy to that. But we supported the training element on the show as well as the studio, which was funded through our sector development program.

3638 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Maybe one last question if I have time. So you talked about narrative sovereignty and the particular situation of, you know, what I would call cross‑border communities. How would that work with the definition? I did hear you say that ‑‑

3639 MS. SWANSON: Yeah.

3640 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ we probably need a different list of criteria for Indigenous content ‑‑

3641 MS. SWANSON: Yeah.

3642 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ and some exceptions to be able to consider those particular circumstances. In your mind, how would it work?

3643 MS. SWANSON: In my mind, we have the Canadian definition, which we already adhere to. We’re required to adhere to that definition as part of our contribution agreement with Canadian Heritage.

3644 But within the Canadian definition, there should be a section, a clause for Indigenous productions. And that would include the 51 per cent ownership. And in our case, it could also include and we advocate for it to include an exception to the points when linguistic and cultural Indigenous groups want to work together across those borders, the prime example being the Inuit people of Greenland and Canada.

3645 It’s an exception to the rule; it’s not the rule. And I think within the definition of Canadian content, it would be those specific Indigenous requirements that would be included that fall within, you know, the definition that we’ve already submitted to the CRTC. We would of course review that definition at that time to make sure that if the broader definition is revised that, you know, we’re still aligned. But that is how I see it.

3646 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: I know we are running out of time, so we may follow up with a request for information ‑‑

3647 MS. SWANSON: Please do.

3648 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ because I want to better understand that exception that you’re talking about for cross‑border communities and how it would work, for instance, with residency requirements. What happens if you’re in a project in between ‑‑ you know, led by the Inuit people, but the director actually resides in Greenland so is not Canadian, how would that fit. So this is getting way into details. So if you agree, I would follow up with a request for information.

3649 MS. SWANSON: Absolutely. And I want to make one thing clear is that the IP ownership would still reside with an Indigenous production company in Canada.

3650 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Thank you for the clarification ‑‑

3651 MS. SWANSON: I think that’s an important clarification.

3652 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you so much.

3653 THE CHAIRPERSON: I was wondering why the Vice‑Chair was ending with such difficult questions, but the question around North of North clearly brought you a lot of energy. We could see that ‑‑

3654 MS. SWANSON: It does.

3655 THE CHAIRPERSON:  ‑‑ in your response, so. So there you go.

3656 We would like to turn things back over to you for any concluding statement. Thank you.

3657 MS. SWANSON: Well, thank you so much for the time. And I want to talk a little bit about sovereignty. ISO has always maintained that narrative sovereignty is an expression of our actual sovereignty. The sovereignty of Indigenous nations in Canada has been historically undermined and disrespected. And now Canadians are seeing what that looks like and feels like and how serious it is.

3658 Now is the time that we must come together to protect Canadian and Indigenous sovereignty as it is expressed in having our own independent media landscape, the storytelling that helps us understand who we are as a country. This is our top priority in all of what we were proposing.

3659 And so our three key points, to reiterate, are that removing the PNI rules is inconsistent with the updated Broadcasting Act and with the imperative to foster economic reconciliation for first peoples. It will reduce Indigenous stories we see on our screen. It will have a negative financial impact on the Indigenous screen sector and will be devastating. Not having this regulation will be akin to the previous language in the Act that stated Indigenous programs would be promoted as resources become available. And we all know how that turned out.

3660 Secondly, CPE obligations should include direct funding to the ISO. We are Canada’s only Indigenous funder for the screen sector.

3661 And finally, the definition of Canadian content should include a section for Indigenous content that addresses the imperative for narrative sovereignty. This requires that Indigenous people own the majority share of their original IP and have creative control over their projects.

3662 The ISO will be happy to work with the CRTC as we are currently working with our colleagues in government and our sister funding agency to finetune this definition.

3663 Thank you for the opportunity to present today. And I do want to acknowledge and thank the CRTC for the work that was done in Phase 1 of this process that mandated funding to the ISO to address many of the issues we’re here to discuss today. Miigwetch.

3664 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

3665 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

3666 Nous allons maintenant entendre la présentation de la Société de télédiffusion du Québec. Je vous demanderais, s’il vous plaît, d’allumer vos caméras. Lorsque vous êtes prêts, vous pouvez débuter et vous présenter. Merci.

Présentation

3667 M^me COLLIN : Merci beaucoup, madame. Madame la Présidente, Madame la Vice‑présidente et Monsieur le Vice‑président, Mesdames les Conseillères et les membres du personnel, je suis Marie Collin, présidente‑directrice générale de Télé‑Québec. Et je suis accompagnée de mes collègues, de Nicole Tardif, qui est la vice‑présidente principale, communications, image de marque et affaires gouvernementales, de monsieur Dominic Gourgues, vice‑président affaires juridiques et corporatives et secrétaire, et de Jean‑Claude Cadot, conseiller en veille stratégique de Télé‑Québec.

3668 Consciente de l’importance des enjeux qui sont liés à la définition du contenu canadien et québécois dans l’avenir de notre industrie, mais aussi de notre identité culturelle, je vous remercie de nous recevoir aujourd’hui à cette audience.

3669 Permettez‑moi rapidement de vous présenter Télé‑Québec. Depuis plus de 55 ans, Télé‑Québec accompagne les Québécoises et les Québécois de tous les âges dans leur quotidien en valorisant la langue française, la culture, l’éducation, l’identité, la diversité et l’innovation. Télé‑Québec a su avec eux évoluer et est devenue aujourd’hui un média multiécran.

3670 Plusieurs de nos contenus sont également accessibles sur des plateformes partenaires, mais également dans près de 200 pays à travers le monde, grâce aux réseaux de TV5Monde et de sa plateforme en ligne TV5Mondeplus.

3671 Enfin, Télé‑Québec est un levier économique puissant dans nos différentes régions et un partenaire important de la production indépendante québécoise.

3672 Je souhaite maintenant vous partager nos observations concernant les éléments culturels dans la définition du contenu canadien ainsi que les dépenses dans la programmation canadienne.

3673 La Loi sur la radiodiffusion précise que :

« La réglementation et la surveillance du système devraient être souples et à la fois tenir compte des caractéristiques de la radiodiffusion dans les langues française, anglaise et autochtones (…) notamment dans un contexte minoritaire du français en Amérique du Nord, et des besoins et intérêts propres des communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire du Canada ainsi que les peuples autochtones ».

3674 Télé‑Québec croit en effet que le Conseil devrait tenir compte des spécificités du marché linguistique canadien dans la certification des émissions canadiennes, car la langue et la culture sont intimement liées, particulièrement au Québec où la langue française est au cœur de notre identité.

3675 Vous le reconnaissez d’ailleurs, une définition modernisée des émissions canadiennes devrait reconnaître?l’importance de soutenir le contenu de langue française et la nécessité d’appuyer davantage sa création et sa distribution.

3676 Pourtant, à la suite des ateliers que vous avez organisés l’an dernier avec des membres de l’industrie de la production audiovisuelle, le Conseil et la majorité des intervenants à cette audience pensez que le cadre de certification ne devrait pas comprendre d’éléments culturels.

3677 Or, la diversité linguistique est un élément important de la diversité culturelle. La langue française et les langues des Premières Nations nous distinguent sans équivoque des contenus étrangers, en particulier états‑uniens.

3678 C’est pourquoi Télé‑Québec suggère au Conseil d’ajouter un critère linguistique afin de promouvoir et de valoriser la culture québécoise et canadienne‑française en s’assurant que des émissions canadiennes participent à la promotion de la langue officielle minoritaire au Canada et en Amérique du Nord, soit le français.

3679 Concrètement, un pourcentage du total de points possibles pourrait être affecté à la création d’un groupe qu’on nommerait : « ?Langue de tournage? ». Le maximum de points pour la langue de tournage serait accordé lorsque l’œuvre est réalisée intégralement en version originale de langue française ou dans une des langues autochtones en usage dans notre pays.

3680 La moitié des points de la langue de tournage serait accordée lorsque l’œuvre est réalisée en deux langues officielles, à condition que la langue française ou une langue autochtone soit la langue la plus utilisée dans la production.

3681 Télé‑Québec croit que l’ajout d’un critère linguistique dans le cadre de la certification des émissions canadiennes du Conseil favoriserait la production canadienne en langue originale française et en langues autochtones.

3682 Nicole.

3683 M^me TARDIF : En ce qui concerne les dépenses dans la programmation canadienne, Télé‑Québec soutient toutes les démarches législatives et réglementaires qui visent à intégrer les services en ligne étrangers dans un cadre modernisé.

3684 Comme leurs homologues traditionnels, ces services doivent contribuer au système de radiodiffusion national et plus particulièrement à la production et à la découvrabilité des contenus d’ici.

3685 C’est pourquoi Télé‑Québec pense que les services en ligne enregistrés non affiliés à un groupe de propriété de radiodiffusion canadien traditionnel doivent contribuer équitablement à la création et à la distribution d’une programmation canadienne, mais pas nécessairement de la même façon que les services affiliés à une entreprise d’ici.

3686 En effet, Télé‑Québec n’est pas en faveur d’exigences en matière d’investissements directs dans les productions nationales pour ces services. Cela aurait pour conséquences de priver les diffuseurs nationaux des ressources financières et humaines nécessaires à la création et à la production de contenus de qualité d’ici qui nous ressemblent, sans négliger une inflation des coûts de production qui en résulterait, comme on le constate aujourd’hui dans certains pays européens.

3687 Télé‑Québec croit plutôt que le Conseil devrait exiger un minimum de dépenses en acquisitions d’œuvres canadiennes et de contenus d’expression originale française dans les catalogues des services en ligne enregistrés.

3688 Télé‑Québec recommande aussi au Conseil d’exiger que ces acquisitions canadiennes soient mises en valeur et identifiées de manière appropriée, notamment par l’ajout des logos des diffuseurs nationaux licenciés qui ont financé les programmes pendant toute la durée de leur diffusion.

3689 M^me COLLIN : Enfin, Télé‑Québec croit que l’avenir de la radiodiffusion au Québec et au Canada dépend aussi et surtout de notre capacité à séduire et rejoindre la jeunesse d’aujourd’hui afin qu’elle ne perde pas le contact avec les contenus d’ici, particulièrement ceux en français.

3690 C’est pourquoi Télé‑Québec estime que le nouveau cadre de dépenses en émissions canadiennes devrait permettre d’augmenter le soutien à la création, la production, mais aussi à la promotion de contenus jeunesse en langue originale française pour pouvoir offrir aux publics francophones, et particulièrement aux plus jeunes, des contenus de qualité, désirables, attractifs.

3691 Si le soutien à la programmation de nouvelles doit être une priorité, le soutien à la programmation jeunesse doit l’être tout autant.

3692 Bien que les émissions destinées aux enfants et aux jeunes ne soient pas considérées dans une catégorie d’émissions dites d’intérêt national, Télé‑Québec est convaincue que la production de contenus pour les enfants dans une grande variété de genres (l’animation, la fiction, l’information et le documentaire) contribuerait à la création de référents communs, véritables biens publics pour la cohésion sociale, particulièrement pour une nation en situation minoritaire comme le Québec.

3693 C’est pourquoi Télé‑Québec recommande au Conseil d’adopter des mesures incitatives pour encourager la production et la diffusion d’émissions jeunesse dans le marché de langue française.

3694 Ces mesures incitatives pourraient prendre la forme d’un crédit de dépenses en émissions canadiennes pour toutes les dépenses en productions originales de langue française destinées principalement à un public de 2 à 17 ans.

3695 Télé‑Québec pense aussi que le Conseil doit s’assurer de la création d’émissions d’intérêt national et de leur présentation sur toutes les plateformes existantes et à venir, mais également prendre en considération que les services de diffusion doivent être en mesure de programmer leurs divers services avec plus de souplesse afin de maximiser les auditoires et les revenus quand c’est le temps.

3696 Pour conclure, le marché francophone a grand besoin de plus de souplesse et de moyens financiers afin d’accroître la valeur et l’attractivité, la découvrabilité de nos contenus, pour assurer un volume et une qualité suffisante pour répondre aux besoins et aux attentes de tous nos publics, mais particulièrement des enfants, un public très courtisé par les multinationales étrangères, dont le but est purement commercial.

3697 Je suis maintenant disposée, et je vous remercie, à répondre à vos questions.

3698 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup pour votre présentation. Je sais qu’on a quelques questions. Alors, on va commencer avec la conseillère Paquette. Merci.

3699 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui, j’ai beaucoup de questions. Alors, bien, merci, madame Collin, et merci au panel de Télé‑Québec.

3700 Je commencerais par la question des émissions jeunesse puisque c’est le dernier point dont vous avez traité dans votre allocution. On a eu beaucoup, pour vous dire, et je ne sais pas si vous avez suivi un peu nos audiences, mais on a eu beaucoup de discussions dans la dernière semaine et même aujourd’hui sur la question de la programmation jeunesse. Et je sais que Télé‑Québec, bien entendu, a une très, très grande expérience en la matière. Donc, on est très, très contents de vous avoir avec nous aujourd’hui.

3701 Pouvez‑vous nous parler un peu plus des stratégies que vous mettez de l’avant pour rejoindre les jeunes là où ils se trouvent, des résultats, des défis que vous rencontrez et des idées, s’il y en a, qui pourraient servir dans l’élaboration d’un cadre réglementaire? Vous avez parlé, bien entendu, de crédits d’émissions d’intérêt national. Est‑ce qu’il y a d’autres idées? Bien sûr, si vous en avez.

3702 M^me COLLIN : Merci, Madame la Conseillère.

3703 Vous me voyez ravie que vous ayez entendu parler de la jeunesse que pas… simplement pas seulement par Télé‑Québec. Excusez‑moi, je viens de faire une phrase à l’envers. Et vous comprenez que je suis vraiment contente que, maintenant, il y ait plusieurs acteurs du système qui se préoccupent de quelque chose qui s’en venait à grands pas depuis les huit dernières années.

3704 Je me sentais souvent un peu seule à en parler, je dois le dire. Comme on a une grande spécialité, une grande connaissance en jeunesse, on ne ménage pas les stratégies. Si on parle de financement qui pourrait prévenir, oui, on vous parle de s’assurer que les DEC puissent avoir un plus grand impact dans la création, la production, mais aussi beaucoup dans la découvrabilité des contenus jeunesse en langue française parce qu’on sait que, dès le départ, la langue française n’est pas favorisée pour sa découvrabilité puisque les algorithmes sont mieux entraînés en anglais qu’en français. Donc, il y a des sauts plus importants. Mais que dire de l’IA qui s’en vient? Ce sera encore à mon avis plus difficile.

3705 On a décidé d’aller sur plusieurs plateformes. Télé‑Québec, évidemment, a sa plateforme en ligne. C’est les contenus jeunesse qui sont les plus consommés. On a décidé que nos produits soient gratuits aux usagers. Je ne me verrais pas dire à des parents qui n’ont pas les moyens de payer pour une plateforme. « Vous n’avez pas Passe‑Partout pour vos enfants et ce n’est qu’aux autres. »

3706 On sait que, dans plusieurs milieux socio‑économiques en jeunesse, c’est souvent le premier contact culturel qu’a un enfant avant d’aller à l’école, où on lui met un livre pour la première fois dans ses mains. Donc, c’est une importance extraordinaire.

3707 En plus de ça, on a décidé d’aller… Par exemple, on vient tout récemment de partir un service de discussion en ligne en direct pour les enfants de six à huit ans avec une boucle de contenu. Donc, le parent qui sait syntoniser ça pour ses enfants ou qui assoit l’enfant dans l’ordi ou la télévision connectée s’assure d’un contenu sans calories vides, comme dirait une de mes collègues. Donc, il y a une assurance. Et sans publicités dans ce cas‑là.

3708 On a aussi multiplié le nombre d’expériences. Pour les plus vieux, on a parti Mammouth, qui est un groupe qui sert à rassembler les jeunes, qui leur permet de discuter de leurs priorités. Il y a des capsules hebdomadaires avec Mammouth. Il y a des conférences terrain avec ceux qu’ils ont vus comme récipiendaires. On est allés sur l’univers de Roblox avec une de nos marques. On a créé des produits que pour certaines plateformes des médias sociaux.

3709 Pour nous, l’important c’est de se retrouver sur le parcours des jeunes.

3710 Mais, le parcours des jeunes maintenant, il est hyper fragmenté. Il doit multiplier nos actions envers eux. Pour les rejoindre, on doit multiplier par 10 les actions. On doit multiplier notre genre de production. On ne produit pas pour les médias sociaux de la même façon que pour une plateforme en ligne ou du linéaire.

3711 Donc, on a fait tout ça, mais on s’entend que la découvrabilité demeure encore très difficile. Et, nous, on pense qu’on doit trouver un moyen législatif, financier, d’aider des seuls diffuseurs ou groupes canadiens qui s’intéressent à la jeunesse particulièrement parce qu’on est le socle de l’avenir. Nous, on pense que… Vous parlez... Permettez‑moi une gorgée d’eau. Vous parlez beaucoup dans ces audiences‑là de l’importance de l’information. Et nous sommes totalement d’accord avec vous. Ce n’est pas parce que Télé‑Québec n’en produit pas qu’il n’est pas d’accord. C’est essentiel pour la santé de la démocratie canadienne.

3712 Moi, je vous dirais que, si on a une industrie, si on a des jeunes qui reviennent sur nos plateformes, c’est essentiel pour la souveraineté culturelle canadienne. Parce qu’un jeune qui ne regarde pas maintenant, imaginez qu’est‑ce que ça prendra plus tard pour le ramener dans l’écosystème canadien de productions.

3713 Et, avant l’arrivée des plateformes, nous avons toujours eu un immense succès avec les produits d’ici. Maintenant, nos jeunes sont vraiment attirés par tout ce qui se passe ailleurs. C’est normal. Un jeune, par définition, est attiré par ce qui est nouveau. Alors, il y a toujours une attirance. Mais le coût pour les rejoindre devient extraordinairement important.

3714 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Je savais que votre réponse serait longue parce que vous en faites énormément pour les jeunes. Mais est‑ce que…

3715 M^me COLLIN : Et je n’ai parlé que d’une… Excusez‑moi de vous interrompre. Je n’ai parlé que d’une partie de ce qu’on fait.

3716 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui. Et vous parlez en fait, de la découvrabilité en tant que telle que c’est difficile.

3717 M^me COLLIN : Um‑hum. Oui.

3718 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Est‑ce que tout ce que vous faites donne les résultats espérés? Parce que j’ai l’impression qu’il y a encore une grande partie du public Jeunesse qui nous échappe. Et la question c’est : est‑ce que c’est un problème en tant que tel de financement? Parce que toutes les parties qui viennent devant nous, bien entendu, prêchent pour avoir plus de financement alors qu’on sait qu’il y a des médias comme les vôtres qui investissent déjà considérablement dans le contenu jeunesse. Est‑ce que le problème est un problème de financement ou plus encore d’adaptabilité pour rejoindre les jeunes en question?

3719 M^me COLLIN : Je vous dirais que vous avez raison sur vos deux prémisses de base. D’abord, il y a un enjeu de financement parce que le financement qu’on consacrait à la mise en marché ou à la… qui est la découvrabilité maintenant de nos contenus devrait passer… on devrait le multiplier par 30, s’il fallait le faire. Il faudrait pratiquement mettre autant d’argent dans la production des contenus que dans la découvrabilité de nos contenus. Vous comprendrez qu’une chaîne comme Télé‑Québec n’a pas ces moyens‑là, même si on a beaucoup réinvesti en découvrabilité parce que c’est de la production aussi nouvelle et accrue.

3720 Et, deuxièmement, bien, on est un peu dans l’essai erreur ici, c’est‑à‑dire que des pratiques sont plus faciles à comprendre que d’autres. Par exemple, de déposer des contenus sur YouTube, c’est peut‑être plus simple. Mais, quand on décide d’aller sur Roblox, quand on décide d’aller sur un autre réseau social dont on ne possède aucune donnée, il faut comprendre qu’on travaille sur ces plateformes‑là, contrairement à nos propres plateformes où on a des données d’usage, où on a des résultats de performance, on en a très peu de ces… et ces données‑là sont gardées jalousement par leurs propriétaires.

3721 Donc, on nous demande d’aller rejoindre les jeunes sur des plateformes où ils n’allaient pas. Mais on n’a pas tant que ça des résultats de comment ça performe.

3722 Mais il y a évidemment un grand, grand problème financier. Vous n’avez qu’à regarder les états financiers des gros joueurs de streaming majeurs et vous allez voir les montants qui sont investis en découvrabilité puis en mise en marché.

3723 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Um‑hum. Oui, je comprends.

3724 Maintenant, je voudrais discuter avec vous de ce que vous proposez pour la définition de contenu canadien comme tel, des différents éléments que… des différentes modifications que vous proposez à la définition. La première question m’intrigue… une de vos propositions m’intrigue beaucoup parce que vous êtes les seuls à proposer un critère de langue de tournage. Et je me demandais pourquoi, dans la mesure où il y aurait par exemple des dépenses en émission francophone qui seraient requises, pourquoi un critère de langue de tournage en français?

3725 M^me COLLIN : D’abord, vous le savez, Madame la Commissaire, le français est intimement lié à la culture au Québec, entre autres, et probablement en situation minoritaire. Et ça nous définit énormément. Le Conseil a demandé d’avoir des critères mesurables. Il n’y a rien de plus simple que mesurer le critère du français. Vous ne parlez ou parlez pas en français. Donc, c’est un critère très important. Et, nous, on le trouve très fort dans le sens que ça nous définit beaucoup pour qui nous sommes.

3726 Donc, c’est un peu ça qui nous a permis de vous proposer ça. Et si jamais il y avait une production qui n’était pas 100 pour cent en français, bien, on ne pourrait donner qu’une partie des points si le français quand même est majoritaire.

3727 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis une autre de vos propositions, c’est de faire en sorte qu’il n’y ait pas de dépenses en émissions canadiennes qui soit exigée des services en ligne internationaux, qu’ils contribuent davantage à des fonds. On avait juste avant vous le Indigenous Screen Office, qui avait une proposition très similaire pour le contenu autochtone en disant : « Les diffuseurs autochtones devraient avoir la priorité. » Est‑ce que c’est pour les mêmes raisons?

3728 M^me COLLIN : C’est pour les mêmes raisons et ce qu’on a vu à l’étranger. Si vous avez vu dans le milieu européen, ce que ça a donné, ces dépenses‑là, ça a créé une inflation très, très importante, particulièrement en France. Et les producteurs de là‑bas n’avaient plus nécessairement — je mets ça entre guillemets — « les moyens » de produire dans leur propre territoire. C’est ça qu’on ne veut pas qui arrive.

3729 Et on pense qu’il y a deux choses très importantes où les diffuseurs en ligne étrangers pourraient contribuer. Un, ils pourraient contribuer, évidemment, à des fonds de financement. Ils pourraient contribuer à l’acquisition de contenus canadiens et de bien identifier que c’est des contenus qui sont faits au Canada.

3730 Et troisièmement, on devrait les obliger à ce que les contenus du Canada soient découvrables facilement quand ils sont diffusés sur notre territoire. Leur maîtrise de la technologie est tellement grande que c’est le genre de choses qu’ils peuvent faire simplement.

3731 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Maintenant, dans la définition, vous invitez le Conseil à tenir compte des différentes réalités du marché francophone par rapport au marché de langue anglophone. Pouvez‑vous développer un peu votre suggestion? Notamment, vous proposez des critères linguistiques. Comment ça fonctionnerait plus précisément?

3732 M^me COLLIN : D’abord, on sait que... Puis je vais demander à mon collègue Jean‑Claude de compléter ma réponse. Mais on sait d’abord que le marché anglophone et le marché francophone sont très différents si ce n’est au niveau des moyennes des licences qui sont accordées ou des productions. On ne parle pas du tout des mêmes réalités financières.

3733 On sait aussi que, pour tout le monde, c’est quand même… Les diffuseurs québécois, les producteurs québécois prennent toujours un risque financier souvent très important parce qu’on est un petit marché et le fait de pouvoir avoir une vie subséquente à une première saison, une deuxième saison est souvent basée sur des chiffres qu’une année… Et on sait que, de plus en plus, c’est très compliqué. Je vais demander à monsieur Cadot de compléter ma réponse, s’il vous plaît.

3734 M. CADOT : Oui, Madame la Conseillère, bonjour. Si je peux me permettre, donc, effectivement les deux marchés. Bien, les marchés linguistiques sont très différents. Si je prends juste comme exemple au niveau des investissements étrangers, on le sait — je pense que l’AQPM vous en a parlé aussi — les investissements étrangers dans la production francophone sont quasiment nuls. Les budgets aussi des productions sont inférieurs au marché anglophone.

3735 Donc, pour cela, on pense qu’il y a des mesures différentes à prendre selon les marchés et peut‑être avoir un peu plus de souplesse pour le marché francophone afin de favoriser des investissements étrangers puis des partenariats.

3736 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis, vous dites, les investissements des plateformes étrangères sont à peu près nuls dans le marché francophone. Est‑ce que… Puis, en même temps, vous dites qu’on ne devrait pas exiger de dépenses en émissions canadiennes de la part des plateformes étrangères, qu’on serait mieux d’y aller vers des modèles d’acquisition. En quoi est‑ce que l’acquisition de contenu par rapport à la production favoriserait le marché francophone et créerait de l’emploi dans le marché francophone?

3737 M^me COLLIN : Bien… Oui, vas‑y, Jean‑Claude.

3738 M. CADOT : Quand je parlais d’investissement étranger, je ne parlais pas uniquement des investissements des plateformes étrangères, mais aussi des producteurs et d’autres diffuseurs étrangers, pas uniquement des plateformes de vidéo sur demande. Donc, entre autres, ça peut être des préachats, ça peut être des coproductions entre des producteurs francophones étrangers et des producteurs québécois ou canadiens. Donc, je me limitais pas aux plateformes étrangères.

3739 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Mais je comprends que, votre position, c’est que d’exiger de l’acquisition de ces plateformes servirait mieux la production au Québec que des dépenses en émissions canadiennes.

3740 M. CADOT : C’est parce que, si on se fie à ce qui se passe en Europe actuellement, l’investissement… les plateformes ont une obligation d’investissement minimal dans la production locale. Ça a fait exploser les coûts de production. Et les diffuseurs locaux n’ont plus les moyens de produire à même niveau que les plateformes étrangères.

3741 Donc, on ne voudrait pas que, ici, ça arrive aussi. Déjà que le financement des contenus locaux est difficile. On ne voudrait pas en plus qu’il y ait une inflation et que les diffuseurs nationaux ne puissent plus produire de la même façon, de la même… au niveau de la même qualité que les plateformes étrangères.

3742 Par contre, les plateformes étrangères ont un rôle de visibilité, de découvrabilité qui sont déjà inscrits dans la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, qu’ils doivent contribuer à la découvrabilité des contenus d’ici. Et, en les forçant à acquérir des contenus locaux et en favorisant leur découvrabilité, bien, ils respecteraient les objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.

3743 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis est‑ce que je comprends de votre suggestion que seuls les diffuseurs pourraient déclencher l’accès au financement encore, c’est ça?

3744 M. CADOT : Marie, est‑ce que tu veux?

3745 M^me COLLIN : Oui, en en grande partie, oui, effectivement.

3746 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Dans votre intervention, vous estimez que le fait de confier à des Canadiens la responsabilité des décisions clés de création permet de mettre en valeur les histoires canadiennes. Il y a plusieurs intervenants qui ont dit la même chose que vous. Mais est‑ce que la stricte exclusivité des postes clés aux Canadiens ne risque pas plutôt de limiter les partenariats avec des créateurs étrangers? J’aimerais bien avoir l’opinion d’un diffuseur sur cette question.

3747 M^me COLLIN : Non, fondamentalement, on ne croit pas. Et on pense… Bon, c’est sûr que, dans le marché francophone, des coproductions de cette nature‑là, ça existe peu. Ça a été surtout de l’acquisition qui a été faite par les plateformes étrangères.

3748 Déjà plus de 90 pour cent des productions répondent à des critères pour être du contenu canadien. Donc, on pense que les choses sont possibles et qu’il y a des espaces pour pouvoir faire ce genre de partage là. Et on ne croit pas qu’on devrait…

3749 C’est parce que, quand on parle de postes clés, c’est les postes qui sont déterminants dans l’histoire, qui sont déterminants sur la qualité de la production, sur son appartenance, où elle a été faite ou à l’histoire. Et, s’il y a trop de postes clés qui ne proviennent pas du Canada, bien, on va raconter l’histoire, mais pas d’un point de vue… ou pas avec une orientation qui va correspondre à qui nous sommes sur notre territoire.

3750 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Et puis vous proposez d’augmenter le pointage de 12 à 15 points dans votre intervention.

3751 M^me COLLIN : Oui.

3752 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Pouvez‑vous nous parler un peu de ce qu’il y a en dessous de cette proposition, comment cette augmentation contribuerait à créer un système de certification qui apporterait plus de flexibilité et plus de polyvalence pour un large éventail de types de productions?

3753 M^me COLLIN : Oui, mais comme je vous le… Oui, tu veux le prendre, Jean‑Claude? Vas‑y. C’est beau.

3754 M. CADOT : Est‑ce que tu veux… Oui. Madame la conseillère, si je peux me permettre, comme on vous disait plus tôt, il faut vraiment distinguer les deux marchés linguistiques, anglophones et francophones, qui ont des enjeux et des réalités différentes. Dans le marché francophone, il y a vraiment… Le contrôle créatif et le contrôle financier sont deux choses différentes. Nous, ce qu’on propose, c’est plus de souplesse dans le contrôle financier afin d’augmenter les budgets, la qualité des productions.

3755 Dans le contrôle créatif, par contre, on le voit d’après les données du FMC que les émissions canadiennes se qualifient largement. Actuellement, on demande 6 points sur 10 au niveau de contrôle créatif. Puis plus de 90 pour cent des émissions canadiennes atteignent minimum 80 pour cent du nombre de points.

3756 Donc, en maintenant à 60 pour cent, on trouve que c’est vraiment le strict minimum qu’on peut demander au niveau de la création canadienne. Si on veut s’assurer vraiment que la création demeure canadienne, on propose d’augmenter à 80 pour cent des points, donc, 9 sur 15. Par contre, le contrôle financier, on demande plus de souplesse dans le marché francophone pour permettre plus… de meilleurs budgets de production et plus de productions.

3757 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. J’ai une dernière question. Je veux laisser un peu de temps pour mes collègues. Mais concernant votre service… en fait, votre offre en ligne comme telle, en ce moment, elle n’est pas réglementée, elle est exemptée comme telle de la juridiction du Conseil.

3758 De son côté, la MPA, vous l’avez peut‑être entendu, suggère que les services en ligne canadiens aient des requis au même titre que les services internationaux, donc, des requis de dépenses en émissions canadiennes.

3759 Je me demandais comment vous réagissez face à cette proposition. Puis pensez‑vous que vos services en ligne peuvent jouer un rôle important dans tout l’écosystème canadien? Et, si oui, quel devrait être ce rôle?

3760 M^me COLLIN : Si je commence par votre première partie, je pense qu’on devrait plutôt regarder des conditions en dépenses canadiennes, des conditions en diffusion d’émissions canadiennes sur la globalité de ce que Télé‑Québec diffuse et le linéaire, le non‑linéaire. Tantôt, je vous parlais d’une chaîne en direct pour les six, huit ans. Nous, on pense que vous devriez regarder notre « propriété » — entre guillemets — comme un groupe, un très, très petit groupe, si je compare à d’autres groupes canadiens, pour que, nous, on ait de la souplesse, on ait de la souplesse pour parler à nos publics en fonction de la plateforme où on leur parle ou de la souplesse pour aller chercher des revenus là où c’est possible d’aller en chercher.

3761 Donc, dans le cadre actuel, dans la difficulté que les joueurs canadiens ont à opérer maintenant, on aurait besoin de cette souplesse‑là. Mais, en même temps, on reconnaît totalement notre obligation à participer au système canadien. C’est pour ça qu’on est là.

3762 La deuxième question, c’était, rappelez‑moi, la deuxième partie de votre question, c’était?

3763 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : C’était : quel rôle pourraient jouer les services en ligne dans l’équilibre de notre écosystème?

3764 M^me COLLIN : Oui. Quand je le regarde particulièrement d’un point de vue jeunesse, là, il faut, mais absolument que nos jeunes puissent revenir sur nos services en ligne. On n’amènera pas les jeunes sur le linéaire. Ils sont là encore, mais très peu. Il faut les ramener et il faut les garder branchés avec notre culture, notre société. C’est le rôle qu’on devrait jouer, que j’espère que nous jouerons. Est‑ce que ça sera facile? Non. Et c’est clair que nous aurons besoin d’une forme de cadre réglementaire qui va favoriser que les joueurs canadiens puissent soit revenir, se reconnecter avec ces publics ou continuer de se connecter. Je pense ultimement et humblement que c’est la responsabilité du CRTC de nous donner cet appui‑là.

3765 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Merci.

3766 M^me COLLIN : Merci.

3767 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Je n’ai pas d’autres questions.

3768 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. On va continuer avec la vice‑présidente.

3769 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente. Bonjour, madame Collin. Bonjour à vos collègues. Ça me fait plaisir de vous avoir avec nous en cette fin d’après‑midi.

3770 Rapidement, et vous m’excuserez, mais je vais revenir un peu pour faire du pouce sur une question que ma collègue la conseillère Paquette vous a posée sur votre recommandation que l’essentiel de la contribution des plateformes étrangères se fasse en dépenses en acquisitions.

3771 Juste avant vous, nous avions la CEO, la présidente‑directrice générale du Bureau des écrans autochtones. Et on a parlé avec elle et avec d’autres du succès du partenariat international North of North, qui semble connaître un succès absolument incroyable au profit de la visibilité de la découvrabilité de la culture autochtone au Canada, mais aussi à l’étranger. Et c’est un modèle avec… un modèle de partage de propriété intellectuelle qui est intéressant aussi.

3772 Et je voulais savoir pourquoi c’est un modèle qui ne serait pas intéressant pour le type de contenu en langue française qui est développé par vous ou par d’autres au Québec.

3773 Vous avez fait référence au fait que l’expérience européenne tend à montrer une espèce de pression inflationniste. Je ne suis pas sure de comprendre pourquoi exactement. Alors, j’aurais peut‑être aimé revenir là‑dessus. Et, ensuite, j’aurai une autre question.

3774 M^me COLLIN : Écoutez, le marché francophone du Québec n’a pas vécu ça totalement, mais il l’a frôlé. L’année après le retour à la… à la pandémie, où les gens se sont mis à retourner, ce qui est arrivé et ce qui arrive à ce moment‑là puis ce qui arrive en France, c’est que les mégas joueurs étrangers ont des mégas moyens. Donc, ils arrivent, ils vont chercher les meilleurs talents du marché en réalisation, en directeur photo. Et donc, ils offrent des conditions de travail nettement supérieures à celles que nous offrons. Et les joueurs d’ici se privent de ces talents‑là, qui ont contribué à faire du contenu canadien.

3775 On sait que le contenu canadien, puis le contenu francophone à travers le monde est reconnu pour la qualité, son innovation. Et, ça, nous, ce qui nous inquiète, c’est que, nous, on n’ait plus accès à ces talents‑là. On l’a un peu vécu au retour de la pandémie, nous, à Télé‑Québec. Parce qu’il n’y avait plus cette main‑d’œuvre‑là qu’on avait besoin. On a retardé des séries d’un an pour pouvoir les produire. Donc, ça nous préoccupe en ce sens‑là.

3776 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Parce que le modèle de North of North, ce n’est pas Netflix qui vient à Iqualuit et qui prend contrôle puis qui fait tout. C’est vraiment un modèle de partenariat, notamment…

3777 M^me COLLIN : Oui. .

3778 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …avec la CBC, avec APTN, financé en partie par le Fonds canadien des médias. Une entente pour des droits de distribution sur le marché canadien, suivie d’une entente pour des droits de distribution à l’étranger. Donc, c’est là où je me posais la question. Ce n’est pas vraiment un gros joueur qui vient ici puis qui vole tous les talents. C’est un gros joueur qui vient et qui travaille avec des partenaires nationaux pour l’utilisation des talents locaux. Alors, je me demandais pourquoi ce n’était pas un modèle qui semblait être d’intérêt. Et peut‑être que c’est des mauvaises conclusions, là, mais j’aurais aimé vous entendre là‑dessus.

3779 M^me COLLIN : Bien, je ne vous dis pas que c’est un modèle qui n’est pas d’intérêt. C’est le cumul qui nous inquiéterait. North of North — puis je ne connais pas du tout la production puis le projet dans sa globalité – fait probablement partie des exceptions qu’on aime voir et dont on aime en parler. Mais si… C’est parce que, honnêtement, pour le financement de production de cette nature‑là, ça prend de grands joueurs s’il y a un volume. Et c’est quand il arrivera un volume que, là, il pourrait y avoir des inquiétudes. Ce n’est pas des exceptions qui créeraient l’inquiétude.

3780 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Parfait.

3781 M^me COLLIN : Et on ne serait pas contre une exception. T’sais, c’est quelques productions par année, c’est… on qualifie ça d’exception.

3782 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Parfait. Merci. Peut‑être une dernière question sur la propriété intellectuelle. Dans votre soumission, vous recommandez que le CRTC établisse un seuil minimal de 51 pour cent de propriété de droits d’auteur dans la production ou une coproduction. Et vous suggérez que le droit d’auteur ait une durée de 10 ans pour la commercialisation de la production. À moins que je me sois trompée, mais j’ai l’impression que l’AQPM va beaucoup plus loin et parle de 25 ans. Alors, je me demandais pourquoi cette différence, qu’est‑ce qui explique le 10 ans par rapport au 25 ans de votre point de vue. Parce que ce n’est pas très long, 10 ans, dans la vie d’une production, si on tient compte d’une première diffusion, d’une deuxième diffusion, troisième diffusion, et cætera. Je me demandais pourquoi une période qui m’apparaît comme étant assez courte. Quel est le raisonnement derrière le chiffre?

3783 M^me COLLIN : Je vous dirais que c’est normal que l’AQPM et nous, on n’ait pas totalement le même point de vue là‑dessus. Parce que c’est un point de vue de producteur puis un point de vue de diffuseur. Je vous dirais que, quand on parle de 25 ans, pour moi, on parle d’une autre époque. Une époque où les choses tournaient moins rapidement, où les technologies et les offres de diffusion des plateformes étaient beaucoup plus restreintes.

3784 Donc, en ce moment, on est dans un cycle où il y a des mouvements dans notre industrie, soit de technologie ou d’habitudes de consommation, qui sont extrêmement rapides. Nous, on est en train de vous dire : on va vers une proposition qui est plus à mi‑chemin, c’est‑à‑dire qu’on ne jette pas le bébé avec l’eau du bain puis on dit : « Il n’y a qu’un an ». On dit : « Il faut un minimum de 10 ans pour que les contributeurs du départ puissent, avec le financement, puissent quand même faire le plein versus le risque financier qu’ils ont pris. »

3785 Et, nous, on pense qu’il faut plus de souplesse. Il faut plus de souplesse dans les fenêtres de diffusion parce que ça va très vite et qu’une durée de vie d’un œuvre, oui, elle peut être longue, mais elle doit avoir plusieurs plateformes pour avoir plusieurs vies maintenant.

3786 Et déjà, se mettre… Votre cadre réglementaire, vous ne le changerez pas à tous les ans, on le sait, c’est un exercice extrêmement difficile. Il faut voir dans l’avenir. Il faut voir qu’est‑ce qui va arriver quand le Canada aura plusieurs faces et tout ça. Il faut être capable de garder une certaine souplesse. Et, 10 ans, ça nous paraissait un beau compromis entre le propriétaire des droits, qui a fait l’investissement, et les réalités du marché actuel.

3787 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Je vous remercie. C’est tout pour mes questions.

3788 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Merci pour votre présentation. Merci pour la discussion. Et on vous laisse le mot final. Merci.

3789 M^me COLLIN : Merci, Madame la Présidente. Pour moi, il y a une chose… pour nous, à Télé‑Québec, il y a une chose très importante. Vous avez parlé beaucoup d’informations et de démocratie, à juste titre. Il est important de prévoir, de conserver, d’avoir une souveraineté nationale. Mais trop longtemps on a sous‑estimé la souveraineté culturelle. Et cette souveraineté‑là culturelle va beaucoup passer par nos enfants. Et on vous dit qu’il y a urgence d’agir à ce moment‑ci.

3790 On l’a déjà souligné, je le répète, parce que, pour toutes sortes de raisons que vous connaissez mieux que nous, le CRTC fait rarement des différences par marché linguistique. C’est vraiment par parcimonie. Là, on vous dit : vous avez les moyens de le faire, faites‑le parce que nos deux réalités sont très différentes.

3791 En Amérique du Nord, le français, c’est la langue de la minorité et elle est extrêmement associée à notre culture, à la création ou à la diffusion de contenus. Et, ça, ça devrait être soutenu dans un cadre réglementaire. Et, si le CRTC ne le fait pas, qui le fera? Vous avez souvent parlé de partenaires. Il faut faire attention aux grands joueurs comme partenaires. On sait que l’information a été leur partenaire très rapidement. Et on sait ce qu’ils ont fait aux gens de l’information avec C‑18. Ils les ont largués très rapidement.

3792 Finalement, est‑ce qu’on veut, est‑ce qu’on souhaite au Canada laisser la construction identitaire et culturelle de nos jeunes à YouTube, TikTok et tous ces joueurs‑là? Est‑ce qu’on laisserait notre système d’éducation aux mains d’étrangers? Et je sais que vous avez beaucoup entendu parler de jeunesse. Et, moi, ce que je dis : ce n’est pas le statu quo que ça prend pour la jeunesse actuellement. Il faut être capable d’en faire plus qu’on en faisait pour protéger l’avenir, pour protéger l’avenir des contenus adultes, grand public canadiens.

3793 Merci beaucoup de votre attention.

3794 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci encore et bon après‑midi.

3795 M^me COLLIN : Merci.

3796 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. Merci beaucoup. Demain, nous recommencerons à 9 h 00. Bonne soirée.

‑‑‑ L’audience est ajournée à 15 h 21 pour reprendre le mercredi 21 mai 2025 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Deana Johansson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton