Transcription, Audience du 21 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

3798 Quebecor Media inc.

3964 International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, its Territories and Canada

4081 Canadian Independent Screen Fund for BPOC + Creators

4163 Black Screen Office

4225 Writers Guild of Canada

4355 OpenMedia

4448 Racial Equity Media Collective

4478 Racial Equity Screen Office

4524 Fae Pictures

4673 John James McCullough

4766 Digital First Canada

4857 Meridian Artists

Engagements

4117 Engagement

Transcription

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

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L’audience débute le mercredi 21 mai 2025 à 9 h 00

3797 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bon matin. Bon matin, bienvenue. Nous allons commencer avec la présentation de Québecor Média. S’il vous plaît vous présenter et vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

3798 M^me TABET : Bonjour, Madame la Présidente, Madame la Vice présidente, Monsieur le Vice président, Mesdames les conseillères, je suis Peggy Tabet, vice présidente, affaires réglementaires et environnementales. Je suis accompagnée par Frédérique Couette, directrice, affaires réglementaires, radiodiffusion.

3799 Québecor Média a toujours cru en la présence d’entreprises de radiodiffusion canadiennes fortes, innovantes et capables de rivaliser avec les entreprises en ligne étrangères. Ce qui est essentiel au maintien d’un système canadien de radiodiffusion et à la préservation de notre souveraineté culturelle, aujourd’hui plus que jamais.

3800 Cependant, les difficultés vécues par le secteur de la télédiffusion ont poussé plusieurs entreprises médiatiques à procéder à de nombreuses restructurations. C’est le cas de Groupe TVA, qui a dû mettre en œuvre plusieurs plans de restructuration durant les dernières années, dont deux majeurs depuis 2023, entraînant l’abolition de plus de 650 emplois. Ce qui représente la moitié des employés de Groupe TVA.

3801 En dépit de ces efforts de rationalisation, la situation de nos entreprises continue de décliner. Sur les trois dernières années, le bénéfice net avant intérêt et impôt des stations et services de programmation de Groupe TVA a cumulé un déficit de plus de 155 millions de dollars.

3802 Pourtant, nos chaînes et les contenus qui y sont présentés sont les plus populaires au Québec et nos parts de marché sont en croissance. Mais malgré cela nos revenus publicitaires, eux, continuent de chuter. En trois ans, nous avons subi une perte de plus de 36 millions de dollars de revenus publicitaires télévisuels. Et malheureusement, ça continue.

3803 Comme si ce n’était pas assez, nous devons composer avec Radio‑Canada, qui livre, depuis trop longtemps, une concurrence directe et déloyale aux diffuseurs privés, en faisant la course aux revenus publicitaires, aux cotes d’écoute et à l’acquisition de contenus. S’ajoute à cela une baisse marquée des sommes allouées par le Fonds des médias du Canada aux productions destinées à Groupe TVA, en raison d’une part, de la baisse des budgets du FMC et, d’autre part, des changements apportés aux critères de ses programmes. Cela représente en pratique une perte nette de près de 5 millions de dollars pour l’année 2025‑2026, soit près du tiers de son enveloppe précédente.

3804 Lorsque toutes les procédures visant à développer une réglementation pour les entreprises en ligne étrangères ont débuté, Québecor, sachant très bien qu’on tentait de réglementer l’irréglementable, a demandé d’alléger substantiellement le fardeau réglementaire de nos entreprises afin que nous puissions faire face à la musique et concurrencer à armes égales. Au lieu de procéder rapidement à cet allègement de nos obligations afin d’assurer la pérennité des entreprises d’ici, le CRTC a plutôt décidé de tenter à tout prix de réglementer les entreprises en ligne étrangères.

3805 Ainsi, pendant que nous tergiversons depuis plusieurs années sur des concepts et des critères afin de déterminer comment réglementer ces entreprises et que nous attendons depuis des mois, voire des années, des décisions du CRTC, j’ai des collègues qui perdent leur emploi, car les instances gouvernementales ne saisissent toujours pas l’urgence d’agir que nous exposons depuis trop longtemps et continuent malheureusement encore à tergiverser. À quand les solutions concrètes? N’attendez pas la fermeture de nos stations pour comprendre l’importance de ce que nous vous martelons depuis des années.

3806 Il est donc grand temps de donner un nouveau souffle à nos entreprises et de ne pas céder aux pressions d’entreprises étrangères qui réclament évidemment une réglementation façonnée selon leurs intérêts commerciaux, sans réelle considération des sociétés canadiennes et québécoises. Cette posture désinvolte va d’ailleurs directement à l’encontre de l’intérêt public et des principes fondamentaux de la Politique canadienne de radiodiffusion qui commandent que le système de radiodiffusion appartienne à des Canadiens et reste sous leur contrôle, même si des entreprises étrangères opèrent au pays.

3807 Voulons‑nous vraiment un paysage télévisuel uniquement occupé par les plateformes américaines et la télévision publique? Voulons‑nous laisser le champ libre aux plateformes de META pour informer les Canadiens et les Canadiennes? J’ose espérer que la réponse est non.

3808 C’est donc dans cet esprit que s’inscrivent nos propositions.

3809 En matière de contributions, le Conseil doit mettre en place un cadre adapté aux réalités des entreprises canadiennes et étrangères.

3810 À cette fin, en ce qui concerne les entreprises canadiennes, nous demandons un cadre flexible et allégé en établissant un niveau de contribution global pour l’ensemble des entreprises assujetties d’un groupe et en considérant toutes les contributions effectuées par les entreprises de programmation ainsi que les entreprises de distribution de radiodiffusion. Ceci doit être assorti d’une flexibilité dans la répartition de ces contributions et d’une exemption pour les entreprises générant individuellement des revenus inférieurs à 10 millions afin de ne pas les pénaliser indûment.

3811 Par ailleurs, afin d’établir un cadre de contribution équitable, le Conseil doit alléger significativement le fardeau réglementaire, administratif et financier des entreprises de radiodiffusion canadiennes privées.

3812 Je ne vous apprends rien en vous disant que le niveau actuel d’exigences est insoutenable dans le contexte économique et concurrentiel auquel nous faisons face. Et cette microréglementation, souvent inutile au bon fonctionnement du système, accapare des ressources précieuses pouvant être utilisées à meilleur escient.

3813 L’élimination d’exigences archaïques et superflues, que nous réclamons depuis plusieurs années, permettra de consolider un système de radiodiffusion pleinement canadien, porté par des entreprises d’ici, fortes, agiles et innovantes, plutôt qu’un système dominé par des services en ligne étrangers.

3814 L’allègement du fardeau imposé aux entreprises canadiennes privées est donc essentiel à l’établissement d’un système viable, équitable et concurrentiel.

3815 Par ailleurs, en ce qui concerne les entreprises étrangères, si le Conseil croit pouvoir mettre en place une réglementation efficace, celle‑ci devrait prendre la forme d’une approche de contribution distincte guidée par les éléments suivants :

3816 ‑ les entreprises en ligne étrangères ont un modèle d’affaires international, sans véritable enracinement dans la production et la culture d’ici;

3817 ‑ les contributions de ces entreprises doivent viser à pallier la baisse des revenus des joueurs traditionnels fortement impactés par leur entrée sur le marché canadien; et

3818 ‑ l’imposition aux entreprises étrangères d’exigences de dépenses en émissions canadiennes n’avancera en rien la situation précaire des entreprises privées de radiodiffusion d’ici et accentuera indûment la pression concurrentielle sur ces entreprises dont la diffusion de contenu canadien constitue l’élément distinctif.

3819 C’est justement pour toutes ces raisons que le Conseil devrait imposer aux entreprises en ligne étrangères uniquement des contributions financières à des fonds soutenant la production canadienne. Leur permettre de contribuer via des dépenses en émissions canadiennes ne servirait pas l’intérêt public et priverait le système de radiodiffusion d’un apport considérable de plusieurs millions de dollars.

3820 Un tel cadre de contribution serait équitable pour tous les acteurs du système. Il soutiendrait adéquatement la production canadienne, simplifierait le processus de certification d’émissions canadiennes, permettrait de pérenniser un système de radiodiffusion véritablement canadien et sauvegarderait notre souveraineté culturelle.

3821 Frédérique.

3822 M^me COUETTE : En ce qui a trait à la programmation de nouvelles, celle‑ci est essentielle à la sauvegarde de notre démocratie et au maintien de notre structure politique, sociale et économique. Face à la montée de la désinformation, il est plus crucial que jamais de soutenir les diffuseurs d’ici qui produisent des nouvelles fiables.

3823 Or, la fragmentation de l’auditoire et l’érosion des revenus publicitaires, profitant grandement aux entreprises en ligne étrangères, ont gravement fragilisé la production de nouvelles par les télédiffuseurs traditionnels, comme en témoignent les nombreuses suppressions de postes dans ce secteur.

3824 Face à cette crise, les grands réseaux de télévision privés qui sont les principaux producteurs de contenu de nouvelles doivent désormais avoir accès au Fonds pour les nouvelles locales indépendantes dont les critères d’admissibilité doivent être révisés ou à un fonds équivalent alimenté par les contributions des entreprises en ligne étrangères.

3825 Il est également nécessaire d’éliminer la microréglementation actuelle, notamment les heures de nouvelles locales et celles de reflet local, qui détourne des ressources précieuses de la mission première d’information du public.

3826 Il n’est ni utile ni souhaitable de surréglementer le contenu de nouvelles alors que les télédiffuseurs d’ici ont déjà prouvé leur volonté d’offrir une couverture de qualité sans l’intervention continue du Conseil.

3827 M^me TABET : Pour conclure, nous avons besoin plus que jamais que le Conseil procède à la mise en place de solutions concrètes pour alléger substantiellement le fardeau réglementaire qui pèse lourdement sur nos entreprises.

3828 Nous n’avons malheureusement plus le luxe d’attendre. Le bateau est non seulement déjà passé, mais il est en train de couler.

3829 Merci de votre attention. Nous sommes maintenant prêtes pour vos questions.

3830 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup à Québecor pour vos soumissions écrites et aussi pour votre présentation ce matin. On sait que vous avez une journée très occupée aujourd’hui. Alors, on va commencer avec la vice‑présidente. Merci.

3831 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Bonjour. Merci pour votre présence aujourd’hui avec nous. Merci aussi pour la qualité de votre soumission extrêmement détaillée. On n’a pas trois heures devant nous. On va essayer de se concentrer sur les éléments où le Conseil souhaite avoir un peu plus de clarification. Alors, vous nous excuserez si on ne passe pas en revue l’ensemble des éléments dans votre soumission. Prenez pour acquis que, si on ne vous pose pas de question, c’est parce que la soumission était claire.

3832 Alors, vous parlez abondamment de la spécificité du marché francophone dans votre intervention. Ce que d’autres intervenants, évidemment, ont soulevé depuis le début de cette audience. À votre avis, est‑ce que le Conseil devrait imaginer un système double avec des obligations différentes pour les radiodiffuseurs canadiens dans les deux marchés linguistiques? Et, si oui, quelles seraient ces obligations différentes? Et, si l’on pousse le raisonnement, devrait‑il y avoir une définition différente pour le contenu canadien francophone sur lequel baser des obligations différentes, comme l’a suggéré le Bureau des écrans autochtones pour le contenu autochtone?

3833 M^me TABET : Merci pour votre question. Alors, pendant trop longtemps, le marché francophone a toujours eu des obligations beaucoup plus importantes que dans le marché anglophone. Et ceci est en raison de l’excellente feuille de route du marché francophone et du fait que, dans le marché francophone, on produit et on diffuse beaucoup de contenus canadiens comparativement au marché anglophone.

3834 Ceci étant dit, aujourd’hui, on est devant vous pour vous demander un allègement et pour vous dire de réglementer où c’est nécessaire et de déréglementer où ce n’est pas nécessaire. Dans les faits, ce n’est pas nécessaire de réglementer le marché francophone parce qu’il n’y a pas de problème au niveau du contenu canadien, au niveau des EIN, au niveau des dépenses que nous faisons. Notre feuille de route le prouve.

3835 D’ailleurs, en 2012, le CRTC a vu cette belle feuille de route, l’a appréciée et a même… pas déréglementé, mais allégé les obligations de Groupe TVA au niveau des émissions prioritaires, qui sont les ancêtres des EIN parce que, dans les faits, on dépassait largement les obligations et on n’avait pas besoin d’obligations pour faire ces émissions prioritaires là, qui sont aujourd’hui les EIN, puisque notre marché le commande et le demande.

3836 Ceci étant dit, dans notre soumission, on vous a dit qu’il ne devrait plus y avoir de différence parce que, à un moment donné, on est en train de regarder à revoir la réglementation d’une façon équitable et ça serait équitable d’alléger le plus possible notre fardeau réglementaire, qui pèse très lourd, qui coûte de l’argent, qui prend beaucoup de ressources chez nous et qui n’a pas raison d’être lorsqu’on dépasse largement nos obligations.

3837 Malheureusement, en 2017, le CRTC a remis des obligations d’EIN parce que la réponse à notre discours était : « Bien, de toute façon, vous le faites. Alors, ça ne vous dérangera pas d’avoir des conditions de licence. » Aujourd’hui, on est ailleurs. On est là pour alléger le fardeau réglementaire et tout ce qui pèse sur nous. Donc, nous, on n’en veut pas de différence dans le traitement. D’ailleurs, on devrait être moins réglementés que le marché anglophone parce qu’on fait ce qu’on a à faire puis ce qu’on devrait faire.

3838 Pour ce qui est de la définition d’émissions canadiennes, nous, dans notre marché, on n’a pas besoin de changer la définition d’émissions canadiennes et on croit que ça devrait rester comme ça, surtout qu’on demande des contributions au niveau des entreprises en ligne étrangères. Si, si le CRTC accepte notre proposition et va juste avec des contributions, on n’a pas besoin de changer une définition juste pour accommoder les services en ligne étrangers.

3839 Nous, la définition nous convient très bien. On vous a fait comme vous avez vu dans notre mémoire des propositions si jamais vraiment vous voulez changer cette définition‑là. Maintenant, la définition convient parfaitement autant au marché francophone qu’anglophone parce que, dans les faits, huit… je pense que la majorité des émissions ont huit points sur dix, donc, dépassent largement le six sur dix requis pour être défini comme contenu canadien. Je ne sais pas si j’ai répondu à votre question, mais, en gros, c’est ça.

3840 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Oui, oui, on a eu hier quand même un certain nombre de propositions très concrètes pour bonifier la définition. On a eu une proposition d’ajouter un critère sur la langue de… j’ai juste la langue de doublage en tête, la langue de tournage…

3841 M^me TABET : Oui.

3842 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : … dans un souci de faire en sorte que la définition facilite la conclusion de partenariats internationaux notamment, tout en préservant la Canadiennité comme principe fondamental derrière la définition. C’est pour ça que j’étais intéressée un peu à voir dans quelle mesure… Mais vous avez été très claire qu’à votre avis, la définition n’a pas nécessairement besoin de changer pour servir vos besoins en tant que radiodiffuseur privé si j’ai bien compris.

3843 M^me TABET : Exactement. Et même les besoins des entreprises en ligne, si vous décidez que c’est juste des contributions. On est en train de changer toute une définition pour accommoder leurs besoins. Personnellement, nous, on n’a pas besoin de changer cette définition‑là, elle nous convient parfaitement, autant au marché francophone que marché anglophone. Si vous exigez des contributions, si vous êtes capable d’exiger, en fait, parce que, comme vous voyez, ils sont devant la cour en ce moment en train d’appeler des décisions du Conseil, bien, alors, dans ce cas‑là, ça serait juste des contributions. On n’a pas besoin de changer la définition.

3844 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Pendant qu’on parle de définition, je vais vous poser un certain nombre de questions quand même pour avoir vos réactions. Une des suggestions qui a été faite et qui a été présentée comme vue préliminaire du Conseil, c’est l’ajout du poste de show runner..

3845 M^me TABET : Oui.

3846 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …dans la définition du contenu canadien. On s’est fait dire depuis le début de cette audience que ce n’est pas un concept qui est particulièrement présent dans l’industrie francophone et que ça pourrait même être contre‑productif de rajouter le poste de show runner si ça se fait au détriment d’autres postes créatifs qui ont été identifiés comme étant incontournables, notamment par les intervenants du marché francophone, réalisateur, scripteur, et caetera. Et donc, de votre point de vue, est‑ce que l’ajout… Et je vous entends quand vous dites que la définition n’est pas nécessairement problématique en tant que telle, mais puisque vous êtes dans le marché, de votre point de vue, est‑ce que vous pensez qu’introduire le concept de show runner créerait une distorsion dans le dans le marché francophone? Et, le cas échéant, quel genre d’ajustement pourrait être fait pour éviter ce genre d’impact?

3847 M^me TABET : Oui, tout à fait. En fait, la position de show runner dans le marché francophone n’existe pas et c’est pour ça qu’on a fait des propositions dans ce sens‑là si jamais vous voulez vraiment changer la définition. Je vais laisser Frédérique parler des ajustements qu’on désire faire si vous allez vraiment avec l’ajout du show runner puisque c’est une position qui n’existe pas dans notre marché.

3848 M^me COUETTE : Donc, effectivement, dans nos propositions, on soulignait que la définition telle qu’elle est actuellement nous convient parfaitement. Mais, dans le cas où le CRTC désirait élargir les postes clés, on envisageait effectivement le poste de show runner comme étant un poste clé qui ressemblait au poste de scénariste en termes de son rôle au niveau du contrôle créatif. Et, dans ce cadre‑là, comme, effectivement, il est très peu présent dans le milieu francophone, assez peu aussi dans le milieu anglophone, c’est surtout un poste qui est utilisé dans des productions à grand déploiement, ce qu’on propose donc, c’est un un total de points sur 13 points où il faudrait atteindre un minimum de 10 points. Et de prendre en considération par la suite l’existence ou non du poste de show runner, par exemple, dans le cadre des émissions qui sont soumises pour certification. Ce qui ferait qu’effectivement, si ce poste‑là est absent, à ce moment‑là, on déduirait les points attribués pour le show runner du total de points possibles. Et on irait avec toujours un seuil de 70 pour cent au niveau de l’atteinte des points nécessaires pour l’accréditation. La même chose avec le deuxième poste, effectivement, qu’on propose également, qui est le poste relatif au… directeur des effets visuels, effets spéciaux.

3849 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Si vous permettez, je vais toujours rester sur la question de la définition parce que, dans son avis de consultation, le CRTC avait clairement indiqué qu’il souhaitait explorer des modifications à la définition dans un souci de mieux refléter les pratiques de l’industrie. Et, parmi ces pratiques, il y a aussi un intérêt pour la collaboration internationale. J’aimerais vous entendre un peu sur les obstacles que vous voyez dans l’établissement de partenariat à l’international et dans quelle mesure rendre des positions ou adapter la définition permettrait de faciliter la conclusion de partenariats internationaux. Est‑ce qu’il y a un lien qui est évident pour vous? Et le cas échéant, quel est‑il?

3850 M^me TABET : Nous, on ne s’est pas présentés sur les partenariats internationaux parce que ce n’est pas quelque chose qu’on fait. Puis je sais que les autres se sont prononcés là‑dessus, dont Bell. Et on pourrait vous revenir là‑dessus en réplique, mais ce n’est pas quelque chose qu’on a une position ferme dessus. Mais on pourrait vous revenir là‑dessus en réplique et laisser les autres partager leur opinion sur la question.

3851 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Oui, je vais regarder nos collègues du service juridique. Effectivement, je pense que ça serait apprécié si vous pouviez nous revenir sur cette question très précise. Et peut‑être en supplémentaire, l’AQPM, dans sa présentation, nous a parlé du potentiel d’exportation des formats.

3852 M^me TABET : Ça, on en fait beaucoup, par exemple.

3853 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Alors, je ne sais pas si c’est quelque chose sur lequel vous voudriez commenter maintenant ou nous revenir dans le cadre d’une demande d’information ou d’un engagement?

3854 M^me TABET : Oui, on peut prendre ça. Je veux juste comprendre l’engagement. Donc, les exportations, on en fait. Que la définition soit comme elle est en ce moment, ça n’a pas d’influence sur la définition. Est‑ce que vous croyez que des exportations pourraient avoir un impact sur la définition ou...

3855 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Non, j’essaie de comprendre si la définition peut devenir… dans sa forme actuelle ou dans une forme modifiée, peut devenir un moteur, un facilitateur ou a contrario un obstacle pour l’établissement de partenariats internationaux, de sorte à faire voyager finalement le contenu canadien, y compris les formats.

3856 M^me TABET : O.K. Je comprends maintenant votre question. Alors, la réponse est que, encore une fois, la définition qu’on a en ce moment nous convient autant pour faire des exportations que faire des partenariats. On ne croit pas qu’on a besoin de changer cette définition‑là. Mais ceci étant, si jamais il y a quelque chose qui nous échappe, parce que c’est une autre équipe qui s’occupe complètement de ça, on pourra vous revenir en réplique et en engagement. Mais, pour la question de changer la définition pour faciliter, nous ne croyons pas que c’est nécessaire.

3857 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Il n’y a pas de lien à votre avis.

3858 M^me TABET : Exactement.

3859 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : O.K. Parfait. Merci. On reviendra peut‑être pour confirmer l’engagement à la fin de votre comparution… J’ai utilisé le mot « comparution », mais vous voyez ce que je veux dire.

3860 Dans votre intervention, puis vous en avez parlé abondamment tantôt lors de votre présentation, Québecor propose un allègement du fardeau réglementaire des entreprises privées de radiodiffusion. Vous suggérez aussi l’élimination des EIN. Et vous dites dans votre soumission que les obligations de contribution de la SRC devraient avoir pour objectif de garantir le respect du large mandat d’information et de programmation diversifiée qui lui revient.

3861 Est‑ce que le Conseil doit comprendre qu’à votre avis, seule la Société Radio‑Canada devrait s’occuper des types de programmation aujourd’hui financés par les EIN? Sinon, sans EIN, comment à votre avis, pouvons‑nous nous assurer d’un appui au contenu à risque plus difficilement monétisable, par exemple, la programmation pour enfants? Vous savez, on a beaucoup entendu parler des défis auxquels font face les producteurs de contenu pour enfants. Et plus avant, quelles considérations sont importantes à votre avis pour définir le contenu à risque?

3862 M^me TABET : Il y a plusieurs éléments à votre question.

3863 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Oui. Je reviendrai, si vous voulez que je les répète.

3864 M^me TABET : Alors, en ce qui concerne les EIN, nous, on en fait beaucoup et on continue d’en faire. Et, en 2018, les dépenses en EIN chez TVA étaient à 58 millions. Aujourd’hui, en 2024, elles sont à 80,5 millions.

3865 Donc, vous voyez que, les EIN, on en fait. On a une très belle progression et on va continuer à en faire parce qu’on a besoin d’en faire pour notre marché. Est‑ce que c’est plus difficile? Oui. Est‑ce qu’on a moins les ressources? Oui. Mais on n’a jamais dit que les EIN devraient juste être chez Radio‑Canada, au contraire. Les EIN, on en a besoin pour nos cotes d’écoute. On en a besoin pour la popularité de notre chaîne. Donc, c’est quelque chose qu’on va continuer d’en faire. Mais d’adapter les budgets en conséquence, bien sûr.

3866 Maintenant, juste sur Radio‑Canada. Ça fait plusieurs années qu’on demande l’élimination de la publicité sur les plateformes de Radio‑Canada, quelque chose que la ministre sortante avait aussi annoncé avant de quitter. On espère vraiment que ça va se faire. On espère vraiment que ceci va être sur toutes les plateformes.

3867 Et on espère aussi que le mandat de Radio‑Canada va être resserré parce qu’en ce moment, la concurrence continue d’être déloyale. Il y a toujours la course aux cotes d’écoute. S’il n’y avait pas de publicité, il n’y aurait pas de course à ces cotes d’écoute là. Et Radio‑Canada pourra se concentrer vraiment sur la mission première d’une télévision d’État et, par exemple, présenter du contenu pour enfants, quelque chose qu’on ne fait plus parce qu’on n’a plus les moyens d’en faire. On a fermé Yoopa à cause de ça.

3868 Par contre, le contenu pour enfants n’a jamais été aussi populaire, mais pas sur les plateformes traditionnelles, sur les plateformes en ligne. Je regarde mes enfants, les enfants des autres sont partout, sur YouTube et ailleurs. Mais, pour les plateformes traditionnelles, ça devrait être le mandat de Radio‑Canada, de faire ces émissions de jeunesse. Je ne sais pas si je manque quelque chose de votre question.

3869 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Non, mais je vais peut‑être continuer parce qu’on a quand même…

3870 M^me TABET : O.K. Parfait.

3871 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …pas mal de terrain à couvrir et relativement peu de temps. Je veux parler maintenant de ce que vous proposez pour la participation des plateformes étrangères au système de radiodiffusion.

3872 M^me TABET : Oui.

3873 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Vous dites que, les plateformes étrangères, si on leur permettait d’utiliser leurs dépenses en programmation, cela pourrait compromettre la pérennité des radiodiffuseurs canadiens, notamment en augmentant la compétition pour le contenu canadien et les coûts de production et d’acquisition. Que répondez‑vous à ceux qui disent qu’au contraire, cela permettrait plus de compétition au sein du marché canadien et permettrait peut‑être l’émergence de productions à plus grand potentiel d’exportation?

3874 M^me TABET : Dans les faits, les entreprises en ligne font de la production de services en ce moment. Et ce qu’ils essaient de faire en élargissant la définition de contenu canadien, c’est de faire reconnaître cette production de services comme du contenu canadien. Ce faisant, c’est du business as usual. Ils n’auraient pas besoin vraiment d’augmenter leurs dépenses en émissions canadiennes. Ils vont juste fitter dans le moule puis c’est pour ça qu’ils sont devant vous pour essayer de tenter de rentrer du marketing, de la promotion et de la formation dans leurs dépenses d’émissions canadiennes. Donc, ils veulent tout mettre là‑dedans pour ne pas changer grand‑chose dans leurs façons de faire.

3875 Et c’est pour ça qu’on dit que, dans les faits, ça ne va pas amener de l’argent neuf dans le système parce qu’ils vont juste continuer à faire ce qu’ils ont à faire.

3876 Et, évidemment, oui, ça augmente la concurrence. Ils nous concurrencent déjà ça fait des années. Ils ne sont pas réglementés alors qu’on est réglementés à l’os. Ils ont le champ libre au niveau de tout ce qui est conditions, tout ce qui est relations avec la clientèle, tout ça. Nous, on est réglementés de tous les côtés, autant au côté de la distribution que du côté de la radiodiffusion. Et on a… Là, j’ai bloqué. On n’a pas besoin… Je m’excuse, là, je suis partie ailleurs dans ma tête. Donc, on n’a pas besoin d’augmenter… Ils n’ont pas besoin d’augmenter leurs dépenses pour pouvoir nous concurrencer. Ils nous concurrencent déjà alors qu’on a été longtemps… Bien, on est encore en fait réglementés et qu’ils ne le sont pas.

3877 Donc, c’est ça qu’on dit dans les faits, c’est que ça ne changera pas grand‑chose de leur donner des dépenses en émissions canadiennes. Ils vont juste fitter, essayer de fitter ce qu’ils font avec la réglementation actuelle alors que, nous, on a besoin de continuer à faire des dépenses en émissions canadiennes pour notre public.

3878 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Je sais que mes collègues ont des questions. J’ai encore deux questions, si vous me permettez, Madame la Présidente. Toujours sur la question de la contribution des entreprises étrangères, si ces entreprises ne contribuent que via des fonds, tel que vous le suggérez, est‑ce qu’à votre avis, on parle ici d’un financement qui devrait être fléché, c’est‑à‑dire dédié à des types de contenus en particulier? Et, à votre avis, quelles seraient les priorités? Est‑ce qu’il devrait, par exemple, y avoir des obligations spécifiques pour la production de contenu en français?

3879 M^me TABET : O.K. Donc, nous, ce qu’on avait proposé, c’est qu’une partie de ces contributions‑là aille au Fond des médias avec les critères du Fonds des médias. Évidemment, il y a les programmes qui sont en train de changer au Fonds des médias qu’il va falloir aussi adresser parce que, comme je vous ai dit dans mon discours, il y a une problématique au niveau au niveau du budget du Fonds des médias et les enveloppes sont en train de baisser de plus en plus. Donc, ça, il y a quelque chose à adresser là‑dedans. Mais, notre proposition, c’est vraiment de mettre une partie dans le Fonds des médias et une partie pour les nouvelles aussi. C’est ce qu’on avait proposé lorsqu’on était venus devant vous la dernière fois.

3880 Donc, en allant et en contribuant au Fonds des médias, le Fonds des médias lui‑même a des critères pour les enveloppes francophones et anglophones. Donc, ça serait de cette façon‑là qu’on adresserait les enveloppes pour les émissions francophones versus les émissions anglophones.

3881 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Donc, pas aller dans un degré de spécificité comme le Conseil a fait avec sa décision sur les contributions de base, où il y a des pourcentages attendus pour certains types, certaines enveloppes? Vous, vous préconisez davantage une contribution en vrac, laissant au Fonds canadien des médias, selon ses propres barèmes, selon ses propres priorités, diviser l’enveloppe de son propre chef, là, pas parce que ça a été prédéterminé via une décision du Conseil?

3882 M^me TABET : Bien, comme je vous dis, en ce moment, au Fonds des médias, il y a une problématique qu’on doit adresser au niveau des enveloppes. Donc, je ne sais pas si c’est le Conseil qui donne ces directions‑là ou c’est le Fonds des médias qui le font, mais c’est sûr que, si la direction du Conseil a pour effet d’augmenter les enveloppes de production et des enveloppes de rendement et que ça soit plus équitable au niveau du marché francophone versus du marché anglophone, oui, bien sûr. Nous, on n’est pas allés dans ce détail‑là. Nous, on a dit que ça devrait aller au Fonds, mais je vous dis que, en ce moment, il y a une problématique au niveau des programmes du Fonds. Ce qui fait baisser , nos budgets et il faut que ça soit adressé.

3883 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Vous venez de dire que, à votre avis, et c’est indiqué clairement dans votre soumission, que l’argent venant des entreprises étrangères, donc, devrait aller d’une part pour rehausser le Fonds canadien des médias et pour les nouvelles. Et, dans votre soumission, vous suggérez la création d’un fonds spécifique pour la production des nouvelles et de l’information.

3884 Pourriez‑vous nous expliquer pourquoi? Et est‑ce que ça voudrait dire que la contribution de Québecor à un fonds pour les nouvelles ne serait pas comptabilisée dans sa contribution pour le contenu canadien? Et qui serait responsable de la gouvernance de ce Fonds? Et est‑ce qu’il y a des enjeux d’indépendance éditoriale à ce que la production des nouvelles soit financée par un fonds?

3885 M^me TABET : Nous, oui, on a dit qu’on devrait avoir un fonds. On n’est pas allés jusqu’à la gouvernance de ce fonds‑là et comment ça devrait être géré. La raison pourquoi on a besoin d’argent pour les nouvelles, c’est parce que, évidemment, encore une fois, je vous ai dressé le portrait de qu’est‑ce qui se passe chez nous, c’est qu’on est déficitaires partout.

3886 Donc, la seule façon de continuer à faire des nouvelles, c’est d’avoir des contributions pour les nouvelles. Les transferts des EDR aux nouvelles locales, bien, sont en train de baisser comme toute contribution à tous les autres fonds des médias et tout ça parce que les abonnements baissent à la télédistribution traditionnelle. Donc, c’est pour ça qu’on a besoin d’un appui pour les nouvelles.

3887 Par ailleurs, C‑18 a donné de l’argent pour les nouvelles. Ça a été complètement annulé par la taxe sur les services numériques. Donc, d’un côté, on a donné de l’argent, mais, de l’autre côté, on les a retirés par la taxe sur les services numériques. Ça a été complètement annulé. Donc, oui, on a besoin d’aide pour les nouvelles et, oui, on a proposé un fonds, si jamais vous pouvez imposer des contributions. Mais on n’est pas allés jusqu’à penser à la gouvernance de ce fonds‑là et du fonctionnement de ce fonds‑là.

3888 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Et c’est un fonds qui ne serait pas strictement financé par les entreprises étrangères? Il y aurait aussi des contributions qui viendraient des radiodiffuseurs canadiens ou est‑ce que j’ai mal compris votre réponse?

3889 M^me TABET : Non, nous, on a proposé que ça soit par les contributions des entreprises étrangères.

3890 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : D’accord. Parfait. Merci. Ça complète mes questions. Merci beaucoup.

3891 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Alors, on va continuer avec la conseillère Paquette.

3892 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bonjour, madame Tabet. Bonjour, madame Couette.

3893 Vous demandez au Conseil de déréglementer considérablement. En même temps, vous dites : « La définition, on peut la maintenir telle quelle. » Donc, ça revient à : vous êtes en faveur du maintien des exigences concernant certains postes clés. Par ailleurs, vous êtes en faveur de la détention de l’entièreté des droits de propriété intellectuelle par des Canadiens pour 25 ans avec au moins 25 pour cent des bénéfices tirés de l’exploitation des marchés étrangers. Vous soutenez aussi les exigences de paiement de 75 pour cent des coûts de service et coûts de production au Canada.

3894 Donc, la première question que j’aurais pour vous, c’est : quel est l’intérêt pour un diffuseur d’avoir un processus de certification plus contraignant? Parce que, dans la mesure où les obligations découlent de cette définition‑là, c’est quoi l’intérêt pour un diffuseur que la définition soit aussi stricte?

3895 M^me TABET : Nous, comme j’ai dit à madame Théberge, on n’a pas de problème avec la définition. On a un problème avec toutes les obligations qu’on a au niveau de Groupe TVA. On a 45 pour cent des revenus bruts à dépenser, 75 pour cent en émissions originales, 15 pour cent de revenus bruts de l’année précédente en EIN, 75 pour cent des dépenses doivent être effectuées à une société de production indépendante. En termes d’accessibilité, on est réglementés à l’os. En termes de nouvelles de reflet local, en termes de CLOSM, en termes d’heures de programmation locale sur CFTM. CFTM, c’est la maison mère. On a des obligations d’heures de diffusion. Ce qui ne fait aucun sens. Au niveau de CFCM, on a des heures de... On est le réseau le plus réglementé au Canada. On a des obligations. On est plus réglementés au niveau des heures que la Société Radio‑Canada.

3896 Moi je n’ai pas de problème avec la définition. La définition du contenu canadien, ce n’est pas de la réglementation. C’est définir du contenu. Moi j’ai un problème avec l’imposition d’exigences pour comment diffuser ses contenus, quand et pourquoi et à quel niveau. C’est ça ma problématique. Je n’ai pas de problématique avec la définition. D’ailleurs, toutes mes émissions sont à 10 sur 10, là, presque toutes. Ce n’est pas ça la réglementation. La réglementation, c’est tout ce que vous nous imposez en termes d’heures, de quotas, de pourcentage, de ci et de ça. C’est ça ma problématique. On est le réseau le plus réglementé au Canada. Ça ne fait aucun sens.

3897 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis je comprends votre position sur les obligations de dépenses en émissions canadiennes, mais on a des intervenants qui disent que, si la définition était plus flexible, ce serait plus facile, ça favoriserait les partenariats. Et, en fait, la question, c’est : pour un diffuseur, est‑ce qu’il n’y aurait pas place à avoir de la flexibilité au niveau des requis de ce qui se qualifie comme du contenu canadien?

3898 M^me TABET : Mais, ça, c’est… ceux qui veulent ça, c’est les entreprises étrangères. Ils veulent organiser la définition pour que, encore une fois, ils puissent rentrer dans ce moule‑là et faire reconnaître n’importe quelle dépense comme dépense d’émissions canadiennes. Comme j’ai dit, au niveau des EIN, nous, on n’a pas de problématique au niveau des EIN et on continue à en produire. Et, d’ailleurs, comme je vous ai dit, ça a augmenté de 22 millions de 2018 à 2024. En termes de EIN, quatre des cinq premières positions au palmarès de TVA étaient des EIN. Il n’y a pas problématiques au niveau des EIN.

3899 Ceux qui vous demandent d’alléger la définition, c’est ceux qui veulent profiter de pouvoir faire reconnaître des dépenses en émissions canadiennes à cette définition‑là. C’est pour ça qu’on vous propose des contributions au lieu de DEC. Ça va simplifier la vie de tout le monde et ça va permettre à tout le monde de profiter de ce nouvel apport dans le système. Parce qu’à la fin de la journée, c’est ça qu’on veut. On veut un nouveau souffle à nos entreprises.

3900 S’il faut rentrer les entreprises en ligne étrangères, qui ont été longtemps déréglementées, qu’on tente de réglementer aujourd’hui, qu’on n’est pas sûrs de pouvoir le faire et qu’ils continuent à nous concurrencer, on n’est pas plus avancés, là. Les dépenses en émissions canadiennes que vous allez imposer à ces entreprises‑là n’avancent en rien la situation actuelle des entreprises d’ici, qui peinent à tirer leur épingle du jeu.

3901 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Si on prend par exemple…

3902 M^me COUETTE : Peut‑être, si je peux juste ajouter, comme le disait Peggy, effectivement, c’est : l’élargissement de la définition permettrait simplement à ces entreprises‑là d’aller inclure ce qu’ils font aujourd’hui comme de la production de services. Et quand on augmente la quantité de ces contenus‑là sous la forme de programmation canadienne pour pouvoir aller remplir des DEC, ça ne vient pas consolider le système. Au contraire, ça nuit à nos entreprises parce que c’est notre spécificité de faire de la programmation canadienne. C’est ça qui attire le public auprès des entreprises de radiodiffusion canadiennes. Donc, à partir du moment où la concurrence s’accroît, ça ne sera pas bénéfique à l’ensemble du système.

3903 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Mais si on prend par exemple la question du droit d’auteur, vous dites que 100 pour cent du droit d’auteur doit être détenu par un Canadien. Il y a des intervenants qui disent que ça amènerait de la flexibilité dans le système. Je comprends que c’est la position, entre autres, des services en ligne, mais il y a d’autres intervenants qui demandent une souplesse au niveau du droit d’auteur.

3904 Si on le prend du point de vue d’un diffuseur, c’est quand même difficile en ce moment pour un diffuseur d’avoir la propriété sur ces productions. Est‑ce qu’il n’y aurait pas un intérêt à favoriser un contexte où est ce que les diffuseurs pourraient avoir la propriété intellectuelle sur les émissions, les productions qu’ils diffusent?

3905 M^me TABET : Nous, on s’est prononcés sur le 100 pour cent, mais, dans les faits, comme vous avez dit, c’est les producteurs qui ont la propriété intellectuelle sur les œuvres. Est‑ce qu’on voudrait avoir la propriété intellectuelle? Sûrement, mais ça resterait canadien. Je veux dire, à la fin de la journée, tout ce qu’on demande, c’est que ça soit canadien.

3906 Par ailleurs, les streamers, bien sûr, ils veulent avoir de la flexibilité. Vous proposez trois modèles. Les deux derniers modèles, ça va favoriser les entreprises en ligne étrangères. Ça ne favorisera pas les entreprises canadiennes. Donc, nous, on préconise le 100 pour cent parce qu’on est une entreprise canadienne et parce que les producteurs avec qui on travaille sont canadiens.

3907 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui. Très bien. En ce moment, la définition du CRTC n’a pas de requis de droits d’auteur, le requis étant un autre niveau.

3908 M^me TABET : Oui.

3909 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Est‑ce que ça pose problème en ce moment qu’il n’y ait pas de requis de droits d’auteur dans la définition comme telle du Conseil?

3910 M^me TABET : Merci pour la question parce que, justement, ça, c’est un autre élément pourquoi on propose le 100 pour cent. C’est pour s’aligner justement sur la définition du BCPAC. À un moment donné, on a trop de différentes définitions, là. Puis on aimerait harmoniser au niveau du BCPAC parce que c’est beaucoup plus facile en termes opérationnels d’avoir des règles harmonisées avec le BCPAC. Donc, oui, c’est quelque chose qu’on a proposé pour être harmonisés avec le BCPAC.

3911 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Ça fait que, selon vous, ce serait mieux d’avoir un système uniformisé…

3912 M^me TABET : Exactement.

3913 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : …plutôt qu’un système à plusieurs niveaux qui pourrait donner de la flexibilité à certains endroits par rapport à d’autres?

3914 M^me TABET : Exactement.

3915 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : C’est ce que je comprends. O.K. Il faut que je me retrouve.

3916 Vous vous prononcez très, très fermement en faveur de la déréglementation. On a l’impression presque à vous entendre qu’un système où est‑ce qu’il n’y aurait aucune réglementation serait le meilleur des systèmes. Est‑ce que ce serait suffisant d’après vous de déréglementer complètement? Parce que les entreprises internationales sont quand même gigantesques, très, très concurrentielles. Est‑ce que les diffuseurs pourraient concurrencer dans un monde complètement déréglementé?

3917 M^me TABET : En fait, on ne demande pas une déréglementation complète. On demande un allègement de nos obligations, qui sont énormes, pour pouvoir concurrencer à armes égales avec des entreprises que, durant des années et encore aujourd’hui, sont déréglementées parce qu’elles ne paient pas plus. Même si elles ont 5 pour cent d’obligations, elles ne les paient pas.

3918 Donc, ce qu’on demande, c’est un allègement réglementaire. D’ailleurs, vous pouvez prendre… ce qu’on propose, c’est de prendre un niveau de dépenses sur tout ce qu’on fait autant au niveau de la distribution qu’au niveau de la diffusion, que ça soit au niveau de dépenses en contenu canadien. Donc, on demande un allègement important de nos obligations, mais on ne demande pas une déréglementation complète, on ne demande pas le free‑for‑all parce qu’on va continuer à faire du contenu canadien. Puis, ça, il n’y a pas de problème. Mais, maintenant, est‑ce qu’on a besoin de tout ce que je viens de vous dire en termes d’obligation? Je ne crois pas. Et je répète, on est le diffuseur le plus réglementé au Canada.

3919 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Peut‑être une petite question. Dans votre introduction, vous avez dit qu’on ne peut pas réglementer l’irréglementable en parlant des entreprises internationales.

3920 M^me TABET : Des entreprises en ligne, oui.

3921 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Pouvez‑vous dire pourquoi vous dites qu’on ne peut… pourquoi vous qualifiez ça de réglementer l’irréglementable?

3922 M^me TABET : En fait, ils sont en train de prouver ce que monsieur Péladeau vous a dit. Réglementer l’irréglementable, c’est monsieur Péladeau qui était devant vous, qui vous a dit que c’est ça qui allait arriver. Et les entreprises en ligne sont en train de prouver ce qu’on a dit il y a quelques mois, voire années. Ça fait plusieurs années qu’on dit la même chose, là. Ce n’est pas nouveau aujourd’hui. Et aussitôt que vous leur avez imposé un 5 pour cent, un mini 5 pour cent sur leurs revenus, bien, jusqu’à ce jour, on n’a rien vu de ce 5 pour cent là. Puis ils sont devant la cour. Donc, c’est ça, c’est ce qu’on veut dire par réglementer l’irréglementable.

3923 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : J’ai une dernière question. Vous êtes d’accord avec le retrait des exigences en matière d’émissions d’intérêt national. Vous demandez aussi qu’on cesse d’encadrer la production et la diffusion d’informations. Qu’est‑ce qui changerait dans la programmation de Québecor si le Conseil décidait de réduire les obligations en informations, en programmation d’émissions nationales, qu’est‑ce que vous feriez en moins?

3924 M^me TABET : Bien, l’historique a prouvé qu’on ne ferait rien en moins. Parce que, comme je disais, en 2012, on n’avait pas d’obligation ni de reflet local ni de EIN. On a fait confiance à la feuille de route excellente de Groupe TVA et on a enlevé beaucoup, beaucoup d’exigences, qu’on a remises, malheureusement, en 2017 parce qu’on était si bons. Ce n’est pas parce qu’on n’avait pas fait ce qu’on avait à faire. C’est juste parce que : « Bien, de toute façon, vous le faites. Ça fait qu’on va vous donner ces exigences‑là. »

3925 Donc, je ne crois pas… La flexibilité va juste nous permettre de faire des choix puis d’enlever surtout un fardeau administratif qui pèse très, très lourd, des rapports à n’en plus finir. Compter le reflet local, là, dans des stations, là, alors qu’on est une station locale est contre‑productif complètement. On a des obligations chronophages qu’on devrait juste enlever. Tout ce qu’on vous dit aujourd’hui, c’est : débarrassez‑nous de toute cette réglementation lourde. Faites une réglementation allégée, flexible pour nous aider à concurrencer les entreprises en ligne qui, elles, sont toujours déréglementées.

3926 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Mais est‑ce que c’est surtout le fardeau administratif, le problème, ou les obligations comme telles?

3927 M^me TABET : Bien, en fait, c’est un… Puis on pourra répéter tout ce qu’on a comme obligation. Moi, j’ai deux pages d’obligations, là, de résumé d’obligations de… On a 2 h 30 de nouvelles de reflets locales dans chaque station locale. À Québec, on a 3 h 30 de nouvelles de reflets locales par semaine. Ça, là, c’est… Compter par minute le reflet local, c’est complètement contre‑productif aujourd’hui alors que c’est une station locale, là. Bien sûr qu’elle va présenter du reflet local. Elle ne va pas présenter ce qui se passe à Montréal. Elle va présenter ce qui se passe à Québec. Donc, c’est des obligations qui ne sont plus utiles puis qui sont là pour juste augmenter le fardeau administratif.

3928 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Ce que je comprends, c’est que vous maintiendriez, même si vous n’étiez pas réglementés, ces niveaux‑là de reflet local?

3929 M^me TABET : Oui, oui. Est‑ce que ça va être plus facile une semaine sur une autre où il y a une crise globale, où il y a une crise internationale? Vous comprenez? Il faut s’adapter à la nouvelle aussi, là. Donc, oui, on maintiendrait parce qu’on est une station locale. C’est par définition. On a besoin d’informer localement les gens qui sont à Québec, les gens qui sont à Trois‑Rivières. C’est contre‑productif de mettre des conditions de la sorte.

3930 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Merci.

3931 M^me TABET : Merci à vous.

3932 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Pas d’autres questions.

3933 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Alors, on va continuer la conseillère Naido. Je pense qu’elle a une question en anglais. Comme d’habitude, s’il vous plaît, répondez dans la langue de votre choix.

3934 M^me TABET : Parfait.

3935 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci

3936 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yes, thank you very much. Please feel free to answer in the language of your choice. I just am not very proud of my French, and I don’t want to embarrass myself, so.

3937 I wanted to talk about news. There are a lot of options on the table to help support news, as you know. You have proposed a fund for vertically integrated broadcasters. Bell has proposed that we give greater flexibility to BDUs to be able to allocate more money to support news. But there could be other options, like reorienting PNI expenditures towards news, and I’m wondering if you can elaborate on why any of the alternatives that we’ve seen on the record to date would not be appropriate in your view, and what would be the best tool to make sure that news is financed and is well supported?

3938 MS. TABET: Thank you for your question. Anything that can help news, we’ll take it. We proposed a fund. Bell proposed another flexibility. At the end of the day, we need money for news; we need money to fund news; and we need money to continue to broadcast news. So anything that can help news, we’ll take it. We looked into other options, and like I said, anything that can help us, we will take it, as long as it helps news.

3939 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Are there any proposals that I have mentioned or that you’ve seen on the record that you think just flat‑out won’t work or some that maybe jump out as a better option to you than others?

3940 MS. TABET: Well, we can look into it and get back to you in the reply phase. We proposed the fund that we spoke about, but knowing that maybe we will never have contributions, maybe there are other options. So maybe we can get back to you in the reply phase and look into everything that was proposed and get back to you on this.

3941 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: That sounds good. Thank you. I have one other question. You had mentioned in your intervention you referred to an end to micro‑regulation on newscasts and local times.

3942 MS. TABET: Yes.

3943 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: And I wanted to give you an opportunity to explain exactly what you mean by that. Are you talking about tracking news hours and just keeping track of that kind of thing?

3944 MS. TABET: Yes, exactly what we were talking about with Ms. Paquette. At the moment, we need to track everything that is locally reflective, and it takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of resources. And it’s counter‑productive, honestly, because we are on a local station that is obviously going to broadcast locally reflective news.

3945 So yes, we want to get rid of it. We never had this before. It’s in 2017 that we got this condition. Honestly, we don’t know why. So yes, we would like to get rid of everything that is very micro‑regulation that we don’t need today and that are contrary to the instructions that the government sent to the Commission in order to have less regulation.

3946 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. That’s all I have. Thank you very much.

3947 MS. TABET: Thank you.

3948 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Alors, merci encore de votre participation. Et soyez rassurées qu’on a bien entendu vos préoccupations sur le fardeau réglementaire sur les radiodiffuseurs et on reconnaît le besoin de flexibilité.

3949 Alors, peut‑être avec ça, on peut vous demander de partager des messages clés ou peut‑être un mot final. Merci.

3950 M^me TABET : Oui, merci, Madame la Présidente. En fait, comme je vous ai dit, on est dans un moment où nos entreprises peinent à tirer leur épingle du jeu. Au moment que je vous parle, j’ai des amis et des collègues qui perdent leur emploi. Donc, on a vraiment besoin d’alléger tout notre fardeau réglementaire, d’avoir le plus de flexibilité possible, honnêtement, pour pouvoir concurrencer et continuer à être concurrentielle avec les entreprises autant d’ici que les entreprises qui viennent d’ailleurs, qui ont longtemps, longtemps été déréglementés et qui ont profité de ça et que, aujourd’hui, en fait, ils sont là pour ne pas juste concurrencer au niveau du contenu, ils nous concurrencent au niveau de la publicité, 80 pour cent de la publicité en ligne va à ces géants du Web là.

3951 Donc, on est dans un environnement précaire. On est en train de restructurer, de fermer des activités, de mettre des… de perdre des ressources malheureusement. Donc, c’est aujourd’hui plus que jamais. On a besoin de solutions concrètes. Ça fait trop longtemps qu’on attend.

3952 On regarde beaucoup comment réglementer les entreprises en ligne, comment protéger le EIN, comment protéger les producteurs indépendants? On ne se demande jamais comment protéger nos entreprises. C’est ça la vraie question qu’il faut demander : comment on doit garder la pérennité de nos entreprises le plus rapidement possible? Parce qu’une journée de plus est une journée de trop. Donc, c’est ce que j’ai à vous dire aujourd’hui. Merci.

3953 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Alors, juste avant de vous remercier une dernière fois, je vais demander à mon collègue, monsieur Beaumier, d’ajouter quelque chose.

3954 M^e BEAUMIER : Bonjour.

3955 M^me TABET : Bonjour.

3956 M^e BEAUMIER : Je voulais juste confirmer avec vous que vous acceptez de prendre un engagement de répondre à la question de la vice‑présidente Théberge, à savoir si le maintien ou une modification à la définition de programmation canadienne pourrait favoriser ou être un obstacle aux partenariats internationaux, incluant l’exportation de formats, et ce, d’ici le 4 juin, s’il vous plaît.

3957 M^me TABET : D’ici le?

3958 M^e BEAUMIER : 4 juin.

3959 M^me TABET : 4 juin, excellent. C’est bien noté.

3960 M^e BEAUMIER : Merci.

3961 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Merci.

3962 M^me TABET : Merci.

3963 THE SECRETARY: I will now ask International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees; Moving Picture Technicians; Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, its Territories and Canada to come to the presentation table. When you are ready, please introduce yourself, and you may begin. Please open your mic.

Présentation

3964 MR. LEWIS: Good morning. My name is John Lewis. I’m here with the IATSE. I’m here on behalf of our members, 32,000 Canadian behind‑the‑scenes workers in film, television, animation, and live entertainment.

3965 M^me LECOMPTE : Bonjour, mon nom est Isabelle Lecompte. Je suis représentante internationale chez IATSE. Merci.

3966 MR. LEWIS: And I’d like to thank you for this opportunity to speak today to the CRTC’s critical work in defining a modern, inclusive framework for Canadian content. The IATSE’s guiding principle is simple: Canadian content policy must reflect the people who create it, not just who owns it. A flexible, inclusive, and forward‑looking system must recognize the meaningful contributions made by many types of Canadian creatives.

3967 The principle is essential to sustaining Canadian storytelling and jobs, and it’s important now more than ever. Bill C‑11 was conceived during a time when the industry was expanding. Due to many elements, it is now facing a contraction. This fluidity underscores why flexibility must be at the forefront of any decisions this body makes.

3968 Canadian content policy must also reflect what everyday Canadians think it means for a program to be truly Canadian. The CRTC’s recent Perceptions of Canadian Programming and News report shows that Canadians associate Canadian content with familiar settings, voices, and lived experiences. They want programming that reflects their values, their culture, and their people. They also care about supporting the next generation of talent to ensure Canadian content continues to grow in both quantity and quality.

3969 Those findings underscore IATSE’s guiding principles and the positions that we will discuss today.

3970 1. Key Creative Positions and the Point system: We applaud the Commission’s effort to modernize the point system. Those efforts will help promote the creation of more Canadian content and more Canadian jobs and provide more and better jobs for Canadians. But to be truly effective in achieving these goals, it must go further.

3971 The IA proposes a more inclusive model that recognizes the full spectrum of key creative roles that shape a program’s identity ‑‑ positions like sound mixers, costume and hair department heads, and visual effects leads.

3972 It’s not just about the lead actor or the screenwriter. It’s about the people who light the scene, build the sets, style the wardrobe, and shape the sound. Think about the famous costumes in The Handmaid’s Tale or the captivating soundscape and visual effects in Vampire humaniste from Ariane Louis‑Seize. These professionals give a program its texture, its tone, and often its emotional impact. And in many cases, they’re what makes a story feel Canadian. The points system IATSE recommends would ensure that their creative contributions are recognized.

3973 M^me LECOMPTE : Point numéro 2, Showrunner. Si le CRTC choisit de reconnaître le rôle de Showrunner comme un poste‑clé de création, il devrait le faire dans un cadre approprié.

3974 Le CRTC doit comprendre que le terme « Showrunner » n’est pas un terme normalisé ou crédité de manière uniforme dans l’ensemble de l’industrie. Le rôle n’existe pas en cinéma, seulement à la télévision, et dans de nombreuses productions télévisées, les responsabilités du Showrunner se chevauchent avec des rôles existants comme le scénariste, le producteur ou le réalisateur. Et même lorsqu’il y a un Showrunner, cette personne ne détermine pas à elle seule si la production a une identité canadienne.

3975 Pour ces raisons, si le Showrunner est inclus dans la liste, il devrait s’agir d’un poste facultatif et non obligatoire et ne devrait s’appliquer qu’à la télévision. Comme les productions cinématographiques n’auront pas ces points de Showrunner à leur disposition, elles devraient pouvoir obtenir la certification avec moins de points que les productions télévisées.

3976 MR. LEWIS: Intellectual property and financial control. We urge the Commission to eliminate Canadian IP ownership as a mandatory requirement for certification. It should instead be one optional way to earn points. IP ownership is important, but the Perceptions report makes clear that it’s not what audiences are thinking about when they consider whether a show is Canadian.

3977 Right now, productions created by predominantly Canadian teams ‑‑ shot in Canada, featuring Canadian characters, telling Canadian stories ‑‑ can be denied certification solely because the IP is held outside the country. That disconnect undermines both the intent of the CanCon system and the public’s trust in it.

3978 Instead, we propose assigning IP ownership a point value ‑‑ alongside other production and cultural criteria. This flexible approach would acknowledge the reality that international productions are the largest employers of Canadian creatives, and are often creators of bona fide Canadian stories, while ensuring Canadian voices remain at the forefront.

3979 M^me LECOMPTE : Éléments culturels. Le système de points recommandé par l’AIEST comprend également une catégorie d’éléments culturels. Cet ajout permettrait de s’assurer que les facteurs qui reflètent les valeurs culturelles canadiennes, comme l’histoire, le lieu de tournage, les personnages et le décor, sont pris en considération et qu’ils aient une valeur de pointage.

3980 Une catégorie d’éléments culturels reflèterait, comme l’indique le rapport « Perception », l’opinion de la majorité des Canadiens, qui disent que « les histoires se déroulant au Canada » et « le contenu qui reflète les réalités canadiennes » sont ce qui donne l’impression que le contenu est canadien. Il serait également cohérent avec les systèmes de point utilisés par d’autres pays dotés d’un système de points d’identité nationale, comme le Royaume‑Uni, la France, l’Allemagne, l’Italie et la Nouvelle‑Zélande.

3981 Dépenses en émissions canadiennes. Les politiques de DEC devraient faire plus que de viser à respecter les quotas; elles devraient viser à développer les compétences.

3982 Nous recommandons de permettre aux entreprises de satisfaire à une partie de leurs exigences en matière de DEC en investissant dans la formation et le développement de compétences. Les syndicats comme l’AIEST ont investi des millions dans la construction d’infrastructure de formation pour les emplois techniques et créatifs. Le soutien de ces programmes répond directement aux besoins d’une main‑d’œuvre plus qualifiée et durable.

3983 MR. LEWIS: And finally, AI must support, not replace. Productions that rely primarily on generative AI must not benefit from CanCon certification or public funding. That would undermine both cultural integrity and job creation in this sector.

3984 Programs created without meaningful human authorship cannot authentically reflect Canadian culture because generative AI often relies on non‑Canadian works for its input data. Those programs also cannot provide training, mentorship or job opportunities to Canadian workers. Fewer training opportunities for junior creatives will eventually lead to a lack of expertise among senior creatives, since they won’t have received vital skills training as juniors.

3985 It is essential for the CRTC to adopt clear guardrails for the use of AI in film and television. While AI can support creative workers, it must never replace them.

3986 And in conclusion, we urge the Commission to adopt a flexible, inclusive framework that truly reflects how Canadian content is created and what everyday Canadians think of as Canadian storytelling. IATSE’s proposed framework would do exactly that.

3987 Our industry is facing an unprecedented wave of change, from the rise of generative AI to shifting trade dynamics and deep budget cuts. Amid this instability, it is more important than ever to put our Canadian identity forward ‑‑ not only to preserve what we have, but to thrive in solidarity.

3988 In moments of upheaval, the CRTC must strive to do no harm. A modern Canadian content system should support the creators at its core, amplify Canadian voices, and ensure our stories continue to be told by and for Canadians. This approach reflects not just IATSE’s position, but also the voices of Canadians you heard in your own consultations.

3989 Thank you. We’re proud to stand for the workers who help tell Canada’s stories, and we look forward to your questions.

3990 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to IATSE for your participation in the proceeding and for being here this morning. You have touched on a broad range of issues and we have a broad range of questions, so I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo to kick things off. Thank you.

3991 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thank you so much for being here today.

3992 In your submission, you say the system should not include any mandatory criteria, whether that be a position, a function, an aspect of production. Rather though, you suggest that points would be weighted according to influence on the production’s Canadian identity. So, how would that work in a practical sense? Because really influence is a very subjective thing.

3993 MR. LEWIS: We represent sound people too, and I’m embarrassed by the fact that I have to be shown how to put the microphone on, but that’s all right.

3994 First of all, we’re saying it has to be the broad range of creative positions, because this is an incentive to hire Canadians. We want productions to try to be Canadian content ‑‑ meet the criteria. To do so means they have to hire Canadians to do that. Right now, it’s such a small restrictive 10 out of 10 that was created 30, 35 years ago, and it doesn’t reflect the changing technology.

3995 What we’re doing today ‑‑ we didn’t have something called a DIT, Digital Imaging Technician. That’s not on the list. That’s on every show now. That’s a new production. With AI, there is going to be a ‘Prompt Engineer’. That’s going to be the next big thing that’s going to happen. And so, these things are changing, and so, I would also say this can’t be another 30 years when we look at this list. Classifications are changing. The reality is changing.

3996 There is always going to be a bit of subjectivity. That’s why had suggested there has to be the cultural angle as well, and I know that’s something that you have said ‘no’ to, but other countries have done it and it’s okay that there has to be some subjectivity. I don’t think that you can get away from that. We do have a hard system where we have points, we have a broader points system, but I think it can lend itself to some degree of subjectivity and judgment in terms of whether something fits within the definition or not.

3997 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. IATSE also proposes incorporating cultural elements into the certification framework to ensure Canadian content genuinely reflects Canadian identity. So, can you elaborate on the specific cultural elements included in your proposed point system? How do you envision the Commission evaluating these elements in a clear and objective manner?

3998 MR. LEWIS: In our submissions, we identified shooting location; the setting; language; storyline; characters; literary, artistic, or historic material in which the story is based; and then general cultural content. But at some level, it just feels Canadian.

3999 And, you know, I think the last time we were here, I think there was sort of a derogatory comment why you just throw in a CN Tower. Yeah, you do. Because that does show that it’s Canada, and that it shows Toronto, and it shows people around the world where that is located. I have no problem with that. You know, productions do that all the time.

4000 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: You also mentioned that your proposed system includes what you call ‘business elements’, and in addition to cultural elements, can you explain what you mean by these ‘business elements’ and how they fit into the overall certification framework?

4001 MR. LEWIS: Well, one is, I know, the subject of a lot of debate, and a lot of discussion there is intellectual property. And so, we say instead of making it a mandatory function, we say it’s two points ‑‑ or maybe it’s three points. It’s important. We’re not trying to minimize the importance; it’s important.

4002 But my concern is, if you have a production that hits everything, but it doesn’t hit the IP ownership, where is the incentive then to hire Canadians? Where is the incentive? And so, if you make one thing and that ‑‑ we’re not saying the DP, the Director of Photography, has to be mandatory. We’re not saying that the Costume Designer has to be mandatory. These are elements. And it’s a creative ‑‑ like, it’s a living, breathing thing. And so, you have to show some fluidity in terms of how it gets done, how a show gets done.

4003 The way a show starts off is not usually how it ends. They’ve made creative changes, they’ve made artistic changes, they may change creative individuals because it just wasn’t working, and I think there has to be some of that ‑‑ you know, we’re not building cars. They’re not coming off a manufacturing line. These are creative jobs and that we do a really good job at. We want to keep doing it.

4004 This is a tough time in this industry. When I was here ‑‑ and I’m going to run a little bit with this; I hope you don’t mind ‑‑ but when I was here last time, we talked about a headwind. The last time we had hearings, there was a bit of a headwind brewing. Well, there is a full storm now; right? In terms of announcements from the south of us, in terms of tariffs, and don’t forget, we’re an international union ‑‑ we’re the only one that operates in this country, and we’re an international union, so we’re having to deal with that as well. But there has been a seismic shift in production.

4005 There is an easing in content worldwide. There are a few exceptions. The UK is booming. Australia is doing extremely well. Korea is doing very well. The US ‑‑ its numbers are terrible. British Columbia, our number one production centre ‑‑ we still have 75 percent unemployment, for two years now. It started with the strikes, and it never came back.

4006 It is a different, changing world in which are working. We’re hoping it’s going to change at some point. You know, for a period of time, all anyone cared about was subscription numbers; right? That’s all anyone talked about. That’s how the markets were evaluating the value of companies, then all of a sudden, someone said, ‘No, we want to deal with profitability,’ and all of a sudden there was a screech in terms of productions, and we’ve got to see that change. But we’re suffering. This industry is suffering right now.

4007 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that answer. Do you believe there should be residency requirements for positions beyond key animation roles? And if so, which roles do you think should have such a requirement, and why do you think so?

4008 MR. LEWIS: In terms of residency ‑‑ so, I am going to qualify this a little bit, because I have been approached by officials, and I know in terms of eliminating provincial trade barriers and creating greater labour mobility, but all the provincial tax credits ‑‑ all of them ‑‑ Manitoba has a fairly broad deeming provision, so you can be outside of the province and still be captured for tax credits. So, that is an issue, because every other province requires residency. The federal tax credit requires residency.

4009 Animation is a bit of a different ‑‑ we have a lot of ‑‑ I just literally took the red eye from Vancouver to get here this morning; I’m going back this afternoon because we’re bargaining one of the largest animation companies in the country ‑‑ and foreign workers is definitely an element. The fact that the majority of everyone is working from home ‑‑ they have these big, mammoth studios and no one is working in them right now, or very few. Everyone is working at home, and I think that’s going to put a pressure on what you’re talking about.

4010 Right now, I would say ‘no’. I know there are some elements in the industry that are saying, ‘We should be able to work anywhere, and it shouldn’t matter about residency.’ Well, you tell that to the provincial government that is paying out the tax credits, if they’re not seeing the bang for that buck. So, I’m not sure, but I think that’s going to be an area particularly in animation, visual effects, where a lot of people are working from home remotely. I don’t know if that’s going to continue forever, but right now, that’s definitely an element.

4011 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Wow, lots of little things to think about, for sure. Would allowing shared key creative roles with a 50 percent Canadian threshold have different implications within the French language market, compared to the English language market, in your view? And how does IATSE suggest ensuring that French language productions receive equitable opportunities under its proposal?

4012 MR. LEWIS: I am going to let my colleague speak to the French element, but I just ‑‑ in terms of shared ‑‑ so, that is an element; right? Like, especially on series work, like a Director of Photography ‑‑ there are usually two; they rotate shows. Sometimes it will be an American, they bring in a Canadian, sort of thing. We try and push as hard as we can to have two Canadians, but there’s usually a sharing. There used to be a lot more, because episodic ‑‑ there used to be 24, 32 episodes; now, like, most series it’s now 8 ‑‑ 8 to 10 episodes on streaming. But there still is this rotating. So, I think it makes sense to have some kind of shared notion.

4013 I’m not sure about the ‑‑ I’ll let Isabelle speak to the French issue.

4014 M^me LECOMPTE : Je ne saurais pas trop quoi rajouter d’autre que mon collègue ici, mais je sais que vous avez annoncé de mettre des obligations par rapport aux industries étrangères pour mettre de l’argent dans le fonds de CMF, et je crois que cette portion‑là pourrait aider pour les productions francophones.

4015 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that. I want to move on to AI. So, how is AI currently being used within the broadcasting industry, and what impact has it had on job opportunities and the creative processes of productions overall? And in addition, I’m wondering if you can tell us how you’ve addressed with your members AI in your collective agreements, and what measures you’ve negotiated to protect members from potential negative effects?

4016 MR. LEWIS: So, AI ‑‑ we have bargained all of our collective agreements, both in the United States and Canada, and film has the exact same language in terms of AI because we want to address it as an industry. It is that much of a concern ‑‑ I’m not going to use the word ‘threat’, but it’s a concern.

4017 Right now, the guardrail is copyright. The biggest ‑‑ you know, everyone talks about this tariff threat. I don’t even know what it was, to be honest with you, and I’ve read it a hundred times. The bigger threat is comments about deregulating copyright legislation in the States. That would have just an absolutely chilling effect in not just this industry but a multitude of industries. If that is the next direction that Administration is going to go, that is really problematic, because right now that has been the guardrail.

4018 When we negotiated our agreements, it was as much about protecting the studios as it was protecting our workers, because sometimes our workers ‑‑ a lot of them are entrepreneurial and they will develop their own AI tools, and they will try to introduce them without telling anyone, and so, now they have to know, before you can use your own AI tool, you’ve got to inform, get permission, approval before you’re doing it. So, copyright is going to be absolutely crucial in this.

4019 We haven’t seen a big reduction ‑‑ any type of significant reduction yet, I think because of that, because I think the uncertainty about AI is predominant. We’re starting to see it more a little bit in visual effects, animation ‑‑ we’re starting to see a little bit of it being introduced, which sort of makes sense. We’re telling our people, so, our view is this ‑‑ it’s covered work. I don’t care what tool you use, it’s covered work. Because if it’s not covered work, then we can’t talk about it, we can’t try and control it. We’re telling our people, ‘Do the work,’ and then we’ll figure it out later, but, ‘Do the work,’ because then it’s covered work, it’s our people that are doing it, and we’ll start to build up the protections that we need to deal with that.

4020 And we’re starting to invest in training. We’ve already started training courses. You know, that’s one of the elements. We were a little disappointed in terms of, you know, the 5 percent. We had pushed that some of that can be met with training initiatives and training money. AI is going to be a huge drain. We do all the training ourselves. We get no money from the federal or provincial governments. We do all the training ‑‑ us and our employers finance pretty well all of it. I don’t know if we have the resources to train with respect to AI. It is that significant of an issue coming down the pike. But it’s all ‑‑ this is really going to be a discussion about copyright in the next year.

4021 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. Those are all my questions, but I know that my colleagues have questions as well. Thank you.

4022 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will go to the Vice‑Chairs next, and given that this is a broadcasting hearing, let’s start with the Vice‑Chair of Broadcasting.

4023 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for being here. You used the word ‘copyright’ in the context of my colleague’s question around AI. Copyright is a key element of financial control. That’s how you protect your investment. It’s probably why the foreign streaming platforms are so keen on making sure that, when they come to Canada, they have some access to IP, copyright being a subset of IP.

4024 And so, your position is actually quite different from what we’ve heard today so far, coming from the Canadian intervenors, because they all argue that IP is a mandatory element ‑‑ or should be a mandatory element ‑‑ of a Canadian definition which gives access to funding.

4025 So, what’s the risk of allowing productions to have access to Canadian funding because there is certified Canadian content, without preserving some IP? Do we run the risk of slowly becoming strictly a service industry because the money is going elsewhere, it’s not coming back into the Canadian market, it’s not being reinvested into the Canadian market? I would be interested in hearing your views.

4026 MR. LEWIS: So, many layers to that question. First of all, a strong industry requires both a strong domestic side and a foreign service side. It has to be balanced ‑‑ for development reasons, and also for national sovereignty reasons, as well. We’ve got to tell our stories. IP ‑‑ the whole issue with Canadian content ‑‑ you know, it’s clear what’s happening. People want to have more shows that would fit within the definition so they don’t have to ‑‑ you know, really the question is ‑‑ I’ll bring up British Columbia.

4027 This is longwinded ‑‑ I am tired, and I apologize, but British Columbia ‑‑ the largest production centre. They do a lot of U.S. work. They do very little domestic production work there. Telefilm hardly touches B.C. in terms of their envelope. Same with the CMF. I think it was like 11 percent; that was the last quote I saw. So, you want to take money away from foreign service work and give it to these organizations, these institutions that are not funding anything in B.C. ‑‑ or very little in B.C. I think there’s something just inequitable about that.

4028 Other countries ‑‑ I don’t want Canada to be an outlier. Other countries ‑‑ this is a competitive global industry, and other countries aren’t going the route of making IP mandatory in terms of meeting the criteria. A lot of them aren’t making investment requirements either. I have no problem with saying there should be some investment in the country. I think that makes sense. In what degree ‑‑ and we’re just talking about how much.

4029 But IP I don’t think is ‑‑ again, it’s important. We think there should be value attached to it. It just shouldn’t be mandatory. It just doesn’t make sense with Handmaid’s Tale. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Margaret Atwood. In Toronto. All ‑‑ a hundred percent crew.

4030 By the way, the other issue ‑‑ all the streamers ‑‑ a hundred percent union when they come to Canada. Telefilm ‑‑ there is an organization called FAIR ‑‑ we’re one of the signatories to it ‑‑ the Directors Guild, ACTRA ‑‑ all the unions, because they keep funding non‑union productions that pay under‑industry‑standard wages, terms and conditions, and no benefits. And so again, the streamers, to my members, have been very good. They pay union rates, union benefits. Anything that diverts money away from that to a large extent, I have an issue with, because it’s about jobs. For me, it’s about jobs.

4031 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Speaking of jobs, in terms of the type of contributions that we should be expecting from the online streamers, do you think some of that money should be earmarked to training? Would that be a category or type of ‑‑

4032 MR. LEWIS: I think all of it should go to training. How’s that for an answer?

4033 No. I do. I think, you know, this ‑‑ under our collective agreement, so both domestic and foreign service producers pay into our collective agreements that have training funds, so they are ‑‑ employers are contributing already. But it is becoming incredibly intense in terms of the training requirements because of what’s going on with ‑‑ just with digital transformation, just with what’s going to happen with AI.

4034 So yes, I would love to see some of that.

4035 In Quebec, they have the 10 percent training fund that would be applied unless a production ‑‑ I forget what it is ‑‑ $1 million payroll, $2 million payroll. So it was for the larger employers. But they could reduce that obligation if they actually did training on the sets themselves.

4036 I would love to see something like that. You know, there has to be money in the industry. I’m not saying there isn’t. But I would like to see some of that for training. Our members and our employers have been absorbing that way too much.

4037 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: And what would be an appropriate percentage? I know I’m asking something quite ‑‑

4038 MR. LEWIS: Well, first of all, I want to caveat because when we did our numbers, it was pointed out to us they didn’t add up to the numbers we said they added up to, so we’re not mathematicians here. But .5 percent. How’s that?

4039 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Of the total contribution for one online streamer, for example.

4040 MR. LEWIS: Right. Of the five ‑‑ I’m talking of the five percent, so .5. You gave 1.5 to local news, why not .5 to the people that actually make these productions.

4041 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. That’s all.

4042 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

4043 Vice‑Chair Scott.

4044 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks.

4045 So I wanted to ask a question about the calibration of the point system. We’ve spoken a lot about, you know, who’s in and who’s out, but not a lot about kind of the relative merits.

4046 So in our proposed new point system, it’s either, you know, one point, two points or zero points if you’re not listed. So two questions, and the first is whether you feel that we’ve overvalued or undervalued any positions.

4047 And the second question is a bit broader, and it’s does the simplicity of that zero, one or two point system outweigh any potential benefits of having a more complex scorecard than that?

4048 MR. LEWIS: I’ll answer the first one first. Makes sense.

4049 I don’t think we reduced any point that was already in your draft. I don’t think we reduced. I think we just added some. It was more about adding.

4050 I don’t think there was any real hard science in terms of what we attributed a two and a one. I think at one point we just didn’t want it to be 70 points, so we trying to kind of ‑‑ you know, we didn’t want to like blow it up, sort of thing. So I think that attributes it.

4051 It was more about ‑‑ like there was some that just, with all due respect, just didn’t make any sense. Like one for the hair and makeup, like you know, they’re two separate crafts, right. Like it’s sort of demeaning.

4052 And I hate to say it, but a lot of the ones that are left out tend to be female dominated classifications, too, and I think that was problematic. I don’t think we spoke about it, but it was clear on its surface there was, you know, costume, hair, makeup. To me, those were important.

4053 I also want to talk about the overall crew composition because I think that’s also important. So that we had a floating 1, 2 or 3 points for the percentage of Canadian crew because it’s not just about creatives, right. It’s about the thousands of people that work on these shows, the 1,200, you know, just my members that work on The Last of Us in Alberta the first season.

4054 It’s about those people, too, and the fact that we can incentivize productions to hire Canadians in all these productions, I think that should go towards it.

4055 I’m sorry. The second ‑‑ I probably talked over both of them.

4056 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: You were starting to get at it, but it’s really the value of having that simplistic point scale versus the added complexity of making it more possibly reflective or more nuanced.

4057 MR. LEWIS: It’s not so much complexity. We did bring in some subjectivity about the cultural element to it and I could see ‑‑ I was the vice‑chair of the Ontario Labour Board. As an administrative tribunal subject to ‑‑ no, you just ‑‑ you want a nice bright line test, right. You want everything to be bright line test. It’s easier to administer, sort of thing. But this is culture, you know. Sometimes it’s ‑‑ we paint over the lines, right. And I think it has to have some subjectivity to it.

4058 This was our best effort of trying to expand it so it’s a little more inclusive but without making it overly so. And we did look at other models in other countries when we put this together.

4059 I don’t think we used it as a model, but I think we’re awfully close to the UK, at least in terms of numbers. Maybe not the actual point ‑‑ what they’re attributed to, but I think we’re very close to the UK model.

4060 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Perhaps I could squeeze in one last question before we turn things back over to you for any concluding remarks.

4061 You mentioned the 75 percent unemployment in B.C. and I’m wondering if that, in your view, is a lull in production. Can you see that coming back or do you think that that’s the structural reality going forward?

4062 MR. LEWIS: It’s because of the CRTC. No.

4063 It is many ‑‑ it’s a weird industry, right. So Warner Brothers was a major studio in British Columbia. They merged with Discovery. They made a major decision that they were going to get out of a certain genre. The CW is doing a lot of cable. All those superhero Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Green whatever, they stopped all those. And that was 35 percent of the work in B.C.

4064 Their tax credit just got enhanced just a few months ago. It hasn’t been proclaimed yet, but it’s tax credits. It’s all sorts of different things.

4065 It is ‑‑ it was ‑‑ it is a little bit peculiar because Toronto’s not suffering. It’s about one of the few jurisdictions in North America that Toronto’s not suffering.

4066 And I do this for a living and I ask a lot of people why, and no one has an answer for me. And sometimes it’s just the luck of the draw. Just certain shows that want ‑‑ need to be in Toronto, they’re just going to Toronto. Sometimes it’s just the luck of the draw.

4067 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that.

4068 We will turn things back over to you.

4069 MR. LEWIS: So in conclusion, we urge the Commission to adopt a flexible ‑‑ I think we’ve said that a number of times in our submissions ‑‑ inclusive framework that truly reflects how Canadian content is created and what everyday Canadians think of as Canadian story‑telling. And again, our proposal does that.

4070 But this industry is far more about just producers, IP ownership and a handful of key creatives. We’re talking about thousands and thousands of jobs. The IATSE represents the largest number of people who work in this industry, the tens of thousands of Canadian creatives who actually earn their living from the industry.

4071 So if, when redefining Canadian content the CRTC does not broaden the definition to include what has been deemed unofficial Cancon, there is little incentive for global producers to hire Canadian creatives. Adding to the list helps secure work for Canadians. That is the same reason we’re against mandatory criteria. If you don’t hit one element, then where’s the incentive to hire other Canadian creatives?

4072 I’ll conclude by reiterating that we have stated over the last few years that when you’re making these decisions, again, please consider all Canadians who will be impacted and do no harm. These are very tumultuous times, and please do no harm to my industry.

4073 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

4074 And I just do want to recognize that you have had a whirlwind 24 hours, mostly on flights, and appreciate that you’re heading back, so thank you very much for being here with us today.

4075 MR. LEWIS: I wouldn’t miss it. Thank you.

4076 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

4077 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a break and be back at 10:45.

4078 Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 32

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 48

4079 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back, everyone.

4080 We will now be hearing the presentation of the Canadian Independent Screen Funds for BPOC+ Creators. Please introduce yourself and you may begin.

Présentation

4081 MS. LEE: Thank you.

4082 Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, Commissioners and Commission staff. My name is Sally Lee, and I am the Executive Director of the Canadian Independent Screen Fund for Black and People of Colour Creators, or CISF.

4083 As some of you may already know, CISF’s history goes back to 1992 when we began operating as the Canadian Independent Film and Video Fund, or CIFVF. As the longest‑standing entity among all of the CIPFs, as well as the first with an equity‑focused mandate, we are grateful for this opportunity to participate in a historic reimagining of Cancon for a truly modernized regulatory framework for our sector.

4084 Given my limited time, I will focus on five major points of specific interest to CISF, all of which are based on the multiple declarations of the Broadcast Act that explicitly state that the Canadian broadcasting system should support and provide opportunities for black and racialized people in Canada, as well as the direction from Heritage which says the Commission must ensure that expenditure requirements support the creation and availability of programming by creators who are members of equity‑seeking groups, specifically including black or other racialized communities and, significantly, also acknowledges the need to do so while taking into consideration the challenges and obstacles that they face, including systemic racism.

4085 Firstly, CISF believes that the point system should be activated to promote storytelling from the perspective of black and racialized Canadians through the provision of incentives and/or added flexibility. For instance, a bonus point could be awarded in cases where an above the line position like director, writer or lead performer is filled by a Canadian who is also BPOC.

4086 In terms of flexibility, a Canadian BPOC producer with a project being shot overseas could seek special permission for Cancon certification at a lower point threshold provided the project meets other tests, for example, the majority share of IP could be staying in Canada, with a BPOC Canadian individual or company, or if there are special circumstances leading to the need for one or two non‑Canadian BPOC team members and/or the producer could potentially be asked to demonstrate efforts and ensuing difficulty finding black and/or racialized Canadians to fill certain key roles. These could be taken into account on a case‑by‑case basis.

4087 This second example would not only facilitate the leveraging of the diasporic networks of black and racialized Canadian producers to secure overseas partners, but also help those Canadian creators who are effectively part of the global majority to tap into the potential for wider appeal among international audiences.

4088 This brings us to our second major concern, the importance of BPOC ownership of IP, which we know is crucial for genuine and sustained empowerment of our communities in the broadcast sector. Is there a reason, for example, that we couldn’t leverage the point system to this end by broadening the instances in which a project can receive points to include productions where the IP is majority‑owned and controlled by a black or racialized Canadian producer or led by a Canadian production company that is owned by a black or racialized producer?

4089 In any discussion of what constitutes BPOC storytelling or what it means for a project to be BPOC‑led, it is important to consider not only who has creative control, but also how any material benefits from the success of a project might be treated.

4090 Thirdly, CISF strongly believes that Canadian Programming Expenditure requirements should mandate a minimum allocation for investment into both the production and acquisition of projects by creators from black and racialized communities specifically.

4091 Fourth, we believe that support for programs of national interest is crucial to ensuring that distinct Canadian viewpoints, particularly around expressing our national values around diversity, are more widely shared. I would argue that one uniquely Canadian perspective is, in fact, all about creating space for a multitude of perspectives, including those of black and racialized Canadians. The importance of continued investment into this aspect of our national culture has only been highlighted further given the current climate in which our national sovereignty is under threat from our powerful neighbour to the south, where we have seen backtracking and outright attacks on so many of the hard‑won gains made around what I consider to be core Canadian values around diversity, equity and inclusion. Here in Canada, these are not only a matter of policy, but, in fact, explicitly promoted in legislation, for example, in the Broadcasting Act.

4092 While Canada continues to face our share of challenges around inequity, systemic racism and righting historical wrongs, it cannot be denied that our national “brand” is inextricably tied to our identity as a multicultural mosaic that embraces diversity, as opposed to being an assimilationist melting pot, and that, for the most part, we are a country of global citizens and diasporic communities, a country that welcomes and values the contributions of immigrants instead of building walls.

4093 The Commission should therefore lean into the use of PNI expenditures to comply with the Broadcasting Act and achieve its stated policy objectives. To actively support black and racialized storytelling through central vehicles like documentaries, dramas and comedies, which are particularly effective at bringing to bear the power of audio‑visual media for the transmission of uniquely Canadian stories and values, the Commission might, for example, consider permitting expenditures on BPOC productions to count for higher credit levels above the actual dollar amount against PNI expenditure requirements. Given the expense and difficulty of producing these types of programs, which has been acknowledged in the Notice of Consultation, regulatory support will be absolutely necessary to ensure that these valuable vehicles for cultural expression continue to be made available to Canadians and, in our increasingly globalized world, for the projection of Canadian values abroad.

4094 And finally, I would like to reiterate an ongoing ask from CISF and several of my colleagues from other equity seeking organizations for a standing engagement group at the CRTC along the lines of the exiting discussion group for OLMs. Acknowledging the specific context of this hearing, I don’t think I need to impress upon the Commission the imperative to get it right on this issue of Canadian content. However, I fear that the drastic asymmetry in resources and access to regulatory expertise between equity‑deserving groups and established industry players continues to limit the capacity of some to fully engage in the process given the pressure cooker format of these public consultations and hearings.

4095 I understand that establishing a standing committee could take time; however, I would like to urge the Commission to convene a group made up of representatives from equity‑deserving groups and individuals in the sector to work closely and meaningfully with the appropriate CRTC staff as soon as possible to ensure that everyone is truly given the opportunity to provide fully informed input into this process. This would help to realize the clear direction from Heritage to support diversity and inclusion and meaningfully engage, on an ongoing basis, with black and other racialized communities along with other equity‑deserving groups.

4096 I am grateful to everyone from the Commission for your attention today and look forward to answering any questions you may have for me at this time.

4097 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. We very much appreciate you being here with us this morning.

4098 And we do have a number of questions, so I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Paquette.

4099 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hello, Ms. Lee. Thank you for your participation.

4100 First and foremost, I would like to start by asking your feedback on the situation right now and considering what has been done, you know, when the ‑‑ in the last years to support equity‑deserving groups. As you know, some funds were created, some networks were launched. We imposed additional conditions to the CBC.

4101 So are these measures giving the expected results from your point of view of the industry? Are we evolving in a good direction? And considering what has been done until now, what do you see as the greatest barriers for BIPOC creators in the broadcasting system today?

4102 MS. LEE: Those are very big questions.

4103 Well, first and foremost, I would absolutely commend all the measures taken to enhance the ability of existing systems and legacy institutions to basically what I consider to be get on the program around issues around diversity and inclusion.

4104 I would, however, say that, you know, the existence and ‑‑ the emergence and existence of organizations and funds that are BIPOC led and governed where the people who are public ‑‑ in public facing roles, all of that, it’s very crucial for us to have our own people in control of designing the programs and funds that are supposed to be serving our communities.

4105 In terms of the biggest challenges, yeah, I would say it would be having the adequate amount of resources to support these groups, challenges being around having stable, secure operating funding.

4106 I know for ‑‑ in the case of CISF, we have been surviving on project funding year to year. It doesn’t provide for a solid platform for doing extended planning. The decision around the base contributions, for example, while we were so delighted to be named as one of the funds to be included in the base contribution mandate, the wording of the decision, it still left us vulnerable in some ways in comparison to other established legacy institutions in terms of whether or not we would receive any funding absolutely or ‑‑ and also the amounts.

4107 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So I hear secure funding control among the challenges. In your intervention, you call for flexibility also in defining the ‑‑ defining Canadian content. You ask the Commission to consider a way to provide flexibility to help black and racialized Canadian creators benefit for special opportunities.

4108 Is the co‑venture model that exists right now and that allows for Canadian producers who wish to work with foreign producers an appropriate model to foster partnership with non‑Canadian creators?

4109 MS. LEE: I would say it’s good that those models exist. However, I suspect that many of the co‑venture models in existence likely favour certain countries where there have been established systems of working.

4110 I think for CSIF as a fund, we would certainly like to see the ability for black and racialized creators to work more closely with their counterparts in other countries. I think maybe at this time I would probably defer the detailed response that to some of the speakers coming up who are themselves producers.

4111 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you.

4112 And do you see any elements that limit the possibilities to partner with diaspora communities in other countries in the point system that we proposed in the Notice of Consultation?

4113 I don’t know if you have had the time to look at it.

4114 Is there anything in what is on the table right now that limits for your members the possibility to participate to international partnerships?

4115 MS. LEE: I think I would have to review that more closely with that specific lens, so I would love the opportunity to actually ‑‑

4116 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: To come back to us.

4117 MS. LEE: Yes.

Engagement

4118 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. I also had the question what specific changes can the CRTC implement to provide greater flexibility considering the situation right now. Do you ‑‑ would you like to answer that question right now?

4119 MS. LEE: Yeah. So I mean, one example that I raised was the ability to assign extra points, for instance, if an above the line person happens to be from a black or racialized community, so bonus points.

4120 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And you proposed to include ‑‑ to modify the definition, include incentives directly into the definition itself. Why do you think it’s important to include this directly in the definition compared to other ‑‑ let me rephrase.

4121 Why do you think it’s important to include incentives directly in the definition of Canadian content compared to other requirements like CPE requirements or funding?

4122 MS. LEE: Well, in terms of the definition of ‑‑ sorry. Could you repeat the ‑‑

4123 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: There’s kind of three levels of tools that can be used to support diversity. There’s the level of the creation, which is the closest I find to the creation. Then there’s the Canadian Programming Expense requirements. Then there’s the level of access to funding. You propose to add incentives directly into the definition and my question, why is it important to include incentives at this level instead of compared to the other levels?

4124 MS. LEE: I think it’s a core ‑‑ I feel like it’s a core element of the Canadian identity around the diversity component.

4125 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you very much. I don’t have more questions.

4126 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

4127 We will go to the Vice‑Chair of Broadcasting.

4128 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Good morning. Nice to see you. Thank you.

4129 A couple of questions on intellectual property, if you would indulge me. So you have suggested that a project could receive points to include productions where the IP is majority owned and controlled by a black or racialized Canadian producer or led by a Canadian production company that is owned by a black or racialized producer. Just a point of clarification.

4130 Are you suggesting that the point be received only when the IP is majority owned and controlled by a black or racialized Canadian producer or a Canadian production company that’s owned by a black or racialized producer, or should IP that is majority owned Canadian, period, also receive a point?

4131 MS. LEE: Well, I would say it would be great to assign a point if it is majority owned Canadian, period, and that there be the ‑‑ a bonus point for ‑‑

4132 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: So an extra point.

4133 MS. LEE: Yeah.

4134 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ or some sort of a bonus ‑‑

4135 MS. LEE: Yes.

4136 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ recognition if it’s owned by a Canadian production company owned by a black or racialized Canadian.

4137 MS. LEE: That’s right.

4138 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: All right. Thank you.

4139 Second question. So how do you respond to foreign online undertakings that are against any form of Canadian IP ownership criteria? They’re basically saying that it has to be ‑‑ they have to make money out of investing in a Canadian production and that includes IP.

4140 So how do you suggest that, you know, the Commission balances these competing interests or proposals with respect to IP?

4141 MS. LEE: When we say majority owned, technically that could be 51 percent, 49 percent is still a lot of room to make some money.

4142 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

4143 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

4144 We will turn things back over to you for any concluding remarks.

4145 MS. LEE: Thank you.

4146 First and foremost, I want to maybe outline or reiterate that it’s not an issue of carrots or sticks. It’s really that both incentives as well as clear and specific mandated requirements should be employed.

4147 And I do want to just say everyone here really does believe in the value of Canadian content, but what we’re trying to sort through is the essential question of how do we define it.

4148 So to that discussion, I do want to say that we need to more fully appreciate that Canada and Canadians are major players in global storytelling and that we need to embrace the fact that our narratives resonate far beyond our borders. To truly reflect who we are, Canadian content must include the diverse voices that shape this country.

4149 Stories from our black, Asian, South Asian, Latin, Middle Eastern and other racialized communities across the country are de facto Canadian stories. When told by us, these stories reflect the lived experiences of people who have helped build Canada and continue to shape its culture. Embracing these stories not only affirms our place within our national identity, but also enhances Canada’s contribution to global storytelling grounded in authenticity, cultural specificity, hybridity and intersectionality, rich in perspective with multiple entry points that resonate across the world and across perceived difference.

4150 Black and racialized voices are essential to Canadian culture and the projection of our values at home and abroad, and as we find ourselves in a uniquely historical moment where the global community is looking to shift the centre of gravity away from the powerful pull of a major player, our cultural policies and regulatory systems have to meet the challenge of keeping up with what promises to be an ever‑shifting landscape.

4151 And I would urge the Commission to seize this timely opportunity to ensure that our screen industry and its cultural contributions remain vibrant and continue to be relevant in today’s globalized world.

4152 I thank you so much for your time and attention.

4153 THE CHAIRPERSON: Just before we thank you one final time, I will turn things over to our colleague, Samuel Beaumier.

4154 MR. BEAUMIER: I would just like to confirm with you the undertaking. So do you agree to an undertaking to respond to Commissioner Paquette’s question regarding whether there are any elements of the current Canadian content framework or the proposed modifications to the framework that limits the possibility of international partnership for your members and to respond by June 4th, please.

4155 MS. LEE: June 4?

4156 MR. BEAUMIER: Yeah.

4157 MS. LEE: Yes.

4158 MR. BEAUMIER: Thank you.

4159 MS. LEE: Thank you.

4160 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

4161 I will now ask Black Screen Office to come to the presentation table.

4162 When you are ready, please introduce yourself and you may begin.

Présentation

4163 MS. JENKINSON: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners, and staff. My name is Joan Jenkinson, and I am the co‑founder and CEO of the Black Screen Office. With me today is Kelly Lynne Ashton, our much‑appreciated regulatory consultant, and we will be co‑presenting today. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Black Screen Office.

4164 At BSO, we are dedicated to advocating for Black Canadians working in the screen industry. Our mission is to ensure that Black stories told from Black perspectives are developed, produced, and distributed across all platforms. We are committed to creating opportunities for Black talent and strengthening networks.

4165 We are working to advance a regulatory framework that supports the creation of programming that reflects the lived experience of Canadian Black communities, both locally and globally. This aligns with the commitment of the Broadcasting Act to reflect Canada’s cultural identity to Black audiences and to broader Canadian audiences, and it is essential that Black‑led businesses and careers are supported as apart of this vision.

4166 Next, we want to talk about Canadian content. We support the CRTC’s proposed modernized point system for Canadian content certification. We also support the idea of maintaining Canadian creative and financial control, including showrunners in the point system when needed and ensuring that they are Canadian. While we understand the benefits of increased flexibility, especially when working with non‑Canadian talent, our primary focus is on supporting Black Canadian talent.

4167 Some Canadian producers want to work with talent from countries that don’t have treaty co‑production agreements with Canada, like Jamaica or Nigeria or Somalia. The flexibility being proposed by the Commission should allow this without risking Canadian content certification. However, we urge the Commission to be careful with the flexibility. If it’s too broad, it might inadvertently shift focus away from Black Canadian talent and towards the larger Black talent pool in the United States.

4168 The BSO strongly believes that foreign streamers should be required to commit to a Canadian programming expenditure or CPE for Canadian Programs of National Interest, and that a PNI CPE is maintained for traditional broadcasters. We’ve heard from many stakeholders that we cannot rely on foreign streamers to tell Canadian stories. While they may be commissioning Canadian content now, we can’t be sure that they will continue unless there is a requirement. We also worry that changes to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility policies in the US could lead to stories that don’t reflect Canadian values, so we cannot look to foreign streamers as the only source of our drama and documentaries.

4169 The BSO also proposes an equity‑based CPE. This would require broadcasters and streamers to spend money on programming from members of equity‑deserving communities, such as Black, racialized, 2SLGBTQIA+, and disabled communities. We cannot ask broadcasters and streamers nicely to support programming by and for members of equity‑deserving communities. That has not worked to date. We suggest starting this CPE at 30 per cent, as was done in the last CBC licence renewal.

4170 We understand that it’s hard to focus a CPE only on Black content creators because of intersectionality, but we recommend that the Commission track the identities of key producers and creatives, and this will help us see if more targeted support for Black talent is needed in the future.

4171 The Commission has asked about creating an identification system for key creatives and producers and IP owners from equity‑deserving communities. We suggest a two‑part approach. First, the system should track all key creatives and producers, not just from equity‑deserving communities, so we have complete data to compare. Second, we recommend that the Commission work with industry stakeholders to develop a common data collection system. Many organizations already have systems in place, and the Commission can build on this work.

4172 The Collaborative Network is a group of industry leaders working to remove systemic barriers for equity‑deserving communities, and that group has conducted a survey on data collection methods, challenges, and opportunities. With your permission, we would like to submit this report for the record to assist you with your deliberations. It was finalized after the submission deadline for this hearing but is available now.

4173 Finally, we want to highlight that Black Canadians have different experiences from Black Americans, whose stories dominate the content presented by American streamers. Our communities want to see our stories that reflect our lives. For example, stories about recent Nigerian immigrants in Lethbridge, Alberta; African Nova Scotians in Prescott; Haitians in Quebec; or Black francophones in Vancouver. Foreign streamers are often focused on American audiences first, with Canadian stories coming second. This is why we believe the CRTC should support a regulatory framework that prioritizes Black Canadian stories and storytelling.

4174 We encourage the Commission to be bold in its approach. This is an important moment for the Canadian screen industries, and we have a real chance to make sure that it reflects the diversity of our country for years to come.

4175 Thank you, and we would be happy to answer any of your questions.

4176 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. I know that you mentioned you would like to provide some additional information to us, so if you could provide that to our hearing secretary, Jade Roy, then we will take it under advisement. Thank you.

4177 I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo to start with the questioning for the Panel. Thanks very much.

4178 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. Thank you so much for being here today. In your intervention, you indicated that buying pre‑existing or pre‑recorded music helps to support the Black music industry. You also suggest that a point should be granted for the purchase of music from Canadian rights holders or composers. So my question is how would this specifically aid Black musicians? And could it not just lead to their back catalogues being purchased without leading to any new work?

4179 MS. ASHTON: That is something that, on further reflection and in discussion with our industry colleagues, we have shifted that perspective to maintaining composer as an individual as all the other point systems are. We’ve heard the presentations of the Screen Composers Guild and we support them.

4180 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you for that. So that’s new since your submission. Is there anything you want to do to flesh that out since we’ve got you here, flesh out how your position has changed?

4181 MS. ASHTON: No.

4182 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: That’s okay if you’ve explained it. I just wanted to give you the opportunity. Thank you very much.

4183 You agreed with the Writers Guild of Canada’s proposed definition for the showrunner position. You’ve probably heard a lot of people said that, you know, the devil’s in the details and the definition of some of these words. You indicated that enshrining the position in the point system has the potential, in your view, to open doors for Black Canadian screenwriters and to actually advance into showrunner roles. So many intervenors, though, most notably online streaming platforms, as you probably know, have stated a Canadian showrunner should not be mandatory for certification. And I’m wondering if you can speak to how you think having Black showrunners would change the current dynamics.

4184 MS. JENKINSON: We think the showrunner addition to the point system is vitally important. The showrunner is the creative force behind a drama series. And they are the ones who, you know, have the creative vision that can ensure that the stories are coming from Canadian perspectives. And they also are in the position to hire talent. And we’ve seen that when Black showrunners are in those positions, they hire more Black talent, and they also create training opportunities so that you’re learning on the job and that you’re part of a system, not outside of a system. And we just think that it’s an incredibly insightful addition to the creative roles.

4185 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. You also say in your intervention that the addition of key creative points may provide room for Black Canadian producers to work with producers from countries that are part of the Black diaspora. And in your view, are there other measures that you think could be adapted by the Commission to better support and increase the number of collaborations between Black Canadian and non‑Canadian producers?

4186 MS. JENKINSON: Well, first of all, we think that the point system you have outlined with 25 per cent of the content being made with non‑Canadians, we think that that has enough flexibility to satisfy those needs. We do know that it is a very difficult thing to do, to create content at all. We have Black producers who want to work with the diaspora, and we want to encourage that, but we think that it can be done within the guidelines that you’re proposing. We do understand, however, that there is a need to be innovative in how we approach this. We want to ensure that Black Canadians are able to bring stories to Canadian audiences that come from the diaspora, but we think that could be managed by potentially a separate fund.

4187 MS. ASHTON: I would also like to add that there are other structures within our system such as the treaty co‑production framework that Heritage oversees. There are not enough treaty co‑productions. There are not enough with particularly the Black diaspora countries. There are only two treaties with countries in Africa, for example. There’s one in the Caribbean. So that’s outside CRTC jurisdiction, but it is something that we are working on because that will make it a lot easier for producers to work with other countries.

4188 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for that. I want to move to PNI. You actually stated in your intervention that you want PNI requirements to be maintained, most notably you pointed out for dramas and for documentaries. You also said that if no requirements are imposed regarding these types of programs, CPE may be spent on lower‑cost content that simply doesn’t meet the needs and interests of Black Canadians. So what kind of productions do meet these needs and interests and how do you see them being financed in the future?

4189 MS. JENKINSON: Well, first of all, we think PNI is vitally important. So we don’t want to see that go away. And as you said, it would be for dramas, comedies, documentaries, programs that are difficult to finance but vitally important in how we see ourselves as a country. And I think particularly Black Canadians have very few shows on the air that reflect who we are as, you know, we have ‑‑ we are overwhelmed with American content that is not the Black experience of Canadians. And so keeping the PNI in place at whatever percentage it ends up being, I think, is very important.

4190 MS. ASHTON: If I can add also, Black Canadians want all content, all content that reflects them, if it’s cooking shows or lifestyle, reality, and that’s why we’re advocating for an equity CPE, so it’s not just limited to drama and documentaries, but that there is just more content across the system.

4191 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Let’s move to news. You had stated that news should not come at the expense of PNI and that both can and should be supported in your view. Can you further explain that position, and could it not be argued that this would just increase the burden on traditional broadcasting, which is already under financial strain?

4192 MS. JENKINSON: Again, we think PNI is important, and we don’t want to lose that at the expense of news. News we also see as, you know, important locally and nationally, and it’s also a starting ground for many Black content creators to move into the drama and documentary world. But again, we think that the genres captured by PNI are important in that news, which is not really our area, but that we would want to see it supported in other ways.

4193 MS. ASHTON: Yeah, I think there are other ways that news is being supported such as the ILNF fund, and so there isn’t just the one solution for news, and we just would not want to see PNI sacrificed for news, particularly the way that it was described in the consultation notice. It sort of assumed that if there was no PNI obligation, broadcasters would spend more money on news, but there’s no commitment that they would do that.

4194 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay, thank you. You also state in your intervention that you don’t think that there is any need to have asymmetrical regulation for the English‑ and French‑language markets. I just wanted to give you a chance to respond to that. Your position appears to be contrary, though, to the opinions expressed by other intervenors at the hearing who advocated for distinct approaches. And so I’m wondering if you can clarify your position regarding that statement.

4195 MS. JENKINSON: We have done a lot of work in English Canada and French Canada, and what we have seen is that particularly Black Canadians, Black francophone Canadians are far behind in terms of the systemic barriers that they face and that very little has been done to date to address those issues. And so we think that a standard should be something that’s across the board. There shouldn’t be an excuse not to do more. And I think if we have asymmetrical standards, that that’s what happens.

4196 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you very much. Those are all my questions.

4197 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I will turn things over to Commissioner Paquette.

4198 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hi. We will have before us this afternoon the Racial Equity Media Collective, which proposes that flexibility should be granted for BIPOC creators to cast internationally recognized actors. They state that this can be crucial for securing international partnerships. Can you comment on this proposal?

4199 MS. JENKINSON: Well, I would want to defer to them to talk about it. But what I will say is that, again, we think the point system that’s being proposed with the flexibility will go a long way in ensuring those desires of producers who want to work within the diaspora. But again, more needs to come, not necessarily from the CanCon process, but from outside of it.

4200 MS. ASHTON: I think what it also comes down to is that the Black Screen Office, our mandate is to support Canadian Black talent. So it’s about maximizing the use of Canadian Black talent and growing that talent pool. So we’re not in support of any proposals that would allow less use of Canadian Black talent.

4201 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I guess that’s why I was interested in having your point of view.

4202 In your presentation, you propose a new 30 per cent threshold for equity‑based CPE for equity‑deserving groups. Given certain concerns surrounding self‑identification and privacy, like risk of misuse and fear of discrimination, how do you suggest the Commission determine which content would qualify?

4203 MS. JENKINSON: The equity CPE, first of all, is for ‑‑ we think it should be for Black, racialized, LGBTQ2IA+, and people with disabilities, so across the board. And that is a value that we think should be ‑‑ that, you know, the Act should follow through on. And ‑‑ what’s the other part of the question? What’s the second part of the question?

4204 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So you propose a 30 per cent threshold, and they are concerned about self‑identification. So how would we measure this 30 per cent? How do you suggest it?

4205 MS. JENKINSON: Well, I think the answer is self‑identification and that there is data collection that ‑‑ many methods that are out there now with the CMF and Téléfilm and CIPS that ensure that privacy is protected while the data is being collected.

4206 MS. ASHTON: But it is also about who qualifies as an equity‑producing producer/production, and we look to what’s been done with Indigenous definition. And so we support a 51 per cent, which allows more emerging producers to be working with more experienced producers, just not letting them have control. We do think that it’s ‑‑ like the identification is very crucial, the privacy issues. That’s why we’re submitting our report on what other people have done and learned, and we’re hoping that can be useful advice to the Commission.

4207 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So the concerns of misuse or fear of discrimination are not major concerns for you?

4208 MS. ASHTON: No, it’s been done with the Canada Media Fund for a number of years now. And they’re at I think like 90 per cent response rate, because it’s not mandatory. But they’ve given the community the comfort that it’s all protected. It’s also self‑identification, so it’s not the producer who delivers that identification. Each individual gets their own number and then submits to the CMF. They’re the most robust of the identification systems.

4209 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you. And in a future flexible framework, why should we apply a specific requirement like this 30 per cent requirement that you’re proposing, and not rely on incentives?

4210 MS. JENKINSON: We think requirements are vitally important because they are measurable and enforceable. And incentives, we haven’t seen how they have performed. We don’t have the data over time to know how effective they can be. But requirements will then be in the Act and not subject to whims of broadcasters or streamers down the road.

4211 MS. ASHTON: The Broadcasting Act now has requirements to support Canadian Black audiences and Canadian Black creators. So we don’t think this should be something that a broadcaster or streamer could choose to do or not. It must do.

4212 And we’ve also seen ‑‑ and this is a line I’ve been using ‑‑ I’m old enough to remember how the 1999 TV policy got rid of expenditure requirements, and drama and documentaries dropped drastically. And it was ‑‑ I was part of the fight to get those expenditure requirements back, which then led to a return of high‑quality drama and documentaries.

4213 So while we may not have a lot of data to show the effectiveness of requirements versus incentives, that experience tells me broadcasters will do things when you tell them they have to.

4214 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you very much. No more questions.

4215 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much. At this stage we would like to ask you to provide any concluding remarks. Thank you.

4216 MS. JENKINSON: Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioners, for your insightful questions and for giving us a platform to share our vision today.

4217 As we define Canadian content, we can’t afford to leave the experiences and perspectives of Black Canadians out. This is a moment to ensure that Black talent on screen and behind the scenes is not just included but supported at every level. The stories of Black Canadians deserve to be told by Black creators who have lived those experiences. And the Commission knows that this is now a requirement in the Broadcasting Act.

4218 While we encourage the value of international collaboration, we must be clear: Canadian creative control must remain in the hands of Canadians, and that includes prioritizing Black talent. The equity‑based CPE is crucial in holding broadcasters and streamers accountable for investing in Black creators, and we must ensure that investment isn’t just an afterthought.

4219 Data collection for key creators is more than a suggestion. It’s necessary to ensure that Black talent is seen, supported, and empowered in our industry. We need transparency to know where the gaps are and how to fix them.

4220 At the end of the day, defining ‘Canadian content’ isn’t just about policy; it’s about justice. It’s about ensuring that Black Canadians have the same opportunities to share their stories, to shape our culture, and to thrive in this industry. This is the change we need, and this is the future we deserve.

4221 Thank you for your time and consideration.

4222 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to the Black Screen Office.

4223 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I would now ask the Writers Guild of Canada to come to the presentation table.

‑‑‑ Pause

4224 THE SECRETARY: Please introduce yourself when you are ready, and you may begin.

Présentation

4225 MS. SHEN: Hello, Madam Chair, Commissioners, and Commission staff.

4226 My name is Victoria Shen, and I am the Executive Director of the Writers Guild of Canada.

4227 To my left is Bruce Smith, our President. He is a screenwriter and showrunner whose credits include Departure, 19‑2, and the TV movie John A.: Birth of a Country.

4228 To Bruce’s left is Amanda Smith, our Vice President. She is an animation writer, a showrunner, and her credits include Caillou, Max & Ruby, and The Cat in the Hat Knows a Lot About That!

4229 And to Amanda’s left is Anthony Q. Farrell. He is a Councillor, a screenwriter, and a showrunner. His credits include Run the Burbs, The Parker Andersons, and the U.S. version of The Office.

4230 And to my right is Neal McDougall, Assistant Executive Director and our regulatory expert. You may direct your questions to him after our opening remarks.

4231 We are at a pivotal moment in our history ‑‑ as a guild, as an industry, and as a country. As a guild, the WGC continues to see declining earnings and work opportunities for our members. Canadian screenwriters face difficult choices. They are unable to find work in a country that they love. They must leave the business to make ends meet, or need to move to the United States to work. And given the political climate today, such a choice is now much more fraught than ever before.

4232 As an industry, we have watched as private English‑language Canadian broadcasters stagnate or decline and, in an attempt to protect their profit margins, retreat from the vitally important programs of national interest. And in the process, they are in retreat from contributing to the objectives of the Broadcasting Act, and ultimately, we must ask how long they even intend to stay in the business of broadcasting at all.

4233 Meanwhile, foreign and mostly American streamers and tech giants focus on service production rather than the Canadian programming that would actually serve the markets where they operate. And in these regulatory proceedings, they propose little or nothing more than having that service production rubber‑stamped as ‘Canadian’.

4234 As a country, we are facing threats, not just to our cultural sovereignty, but to our economy and our national sovereignty itself, and what the Commission decides in this proceeding will impact all of these issues profoundly.

4235 MR. SMITH: That is why we were incredibly heartened to see the Commission state its preliminary view that a showrunner should be added to the certification points system and, critically, that the position must be occupied by a Canadian where it exists. This would be a game‑changer for us. Television is indeed a writer’s medium, and the longstanding flexibility in the 6‑out‑of‑10‑point system has hurt us. Were it not for the 10‑out‑of‑10 point Canada Media Fund, we might not exist in the Canadian industry at all.

4236 As such, we wholeheartedly agree with the Commission’s preliminary view in this respect. Indeed, this is one of the most important steps the Commission could take to ensure that creative control of series television is in the hands of Canadians. This would be a profound step forward in fulfilling the promise of the Online Streaming Act, as it fundamentally places writing at the centre of the creative process where it belongs.

4237 MS. SMITH: As a writer and a showrunner in animation and children’s programming, I second Bruce’s comments. Contrary to what some parties have told you in this proceeding, the role of showrunner does exist in the animation space. Sometimes it’s referred to as a ‘Creative Producer’, a ‘Head Writer’, but no matter what the title or the credit, the functions of the role remain the same. Industry recognition of this fact is growing, as evident by the number of animated series that have a writer doing this critical job, and, for the first time in the history of our industry, the WGC Showrunner of the Year award went to an animation showrunner.

4238 The Commission has asked for a definition of a showrunner, and the WGC has provided one. At the core of this definition is that a showrunner is a writing role. There is no showrunner that is not also a screenwriter. Whether or not the showrunner created the series, and whether or not they are a credited writer on certain episodes, writing is a core and indispensable competency of a showrunner. It is not just a producer by another name. It is a producer who is, above all else, a writer ‑‑ one that holds the institutional knowledge of a series. We have been pleased to see that other intervenors support the WGC’s definition in their own submissions, and yet others note the centrality of writing to the role.

4239 MR. FARRELL: The importance of writing also means that the Commission, having made the showrunner a mandatory Canadian position, has an opportunity in this proceeding to take the next logical step and afford the same treatment to all writers on certified Canadian programming.

4240 The relationship of showrunner to writers in a writing room is itself iterative and collaborative. Writers don’t just execute the directions of the showrunner, but a showrunner and a writing room work as a creative team to make the best possible show by tapping into the talents and viewpoints of every writer in the room.

4241 It is primarily through this room that a diversity of stories, lived experiences, and viewpoints is cultivated and expressed. The skill of a good showrunner includes having a personal vision, but it also involves the openness and support of individual writers to bring their own perspectives to that vision.

4242 Ultimately, it remains true that a showrunner and their writing room represents the authorial voice of the television medium, and the Canadian authorial voice of Canadian content.

4243 MR. McDOUGALL: Given how greenlight decisions at broadcasters and streamers work, we believe there is a real risk that if program commissioning executives for the streamers continue to be based in offices in Los Angeles, which they will have every reason to be, then they will prefer to continue to work with the many talented Canadians who have already moved there. Worse, this could create the unintended consequence that screenwriters will feel that they must move to the U.S., simply to get the chance to work on Canadian content. And as such, we believe that ‘Canadian’ in this context should include Canadian residency, as defined for tax purposes.

4244 We are also deeply concerned about the Commission’s proposal to eliminate the PNI policy. We have already seen Canadian broadcasters seek to abandon PNI genres. They have done so because long‑form documentary and drama, including kids and animation, are risky and expensive. The Commission appears to take comfort in the prevalence of such genres on streaming services to suggest that they don’t need to worry about them on those platforms. But it is not Canadian PNI genres that proliferate there, and it is Canadian PNI that needs regulatory support. We respectfully submit that the Commission would be taking an enormous and unnecessary risk to eliminate the PNI policy now, and we ask you not to do it.

4245 Finally, I would like to return to the theme of Canadian cultural sovereignty. The world you began this public proceeding in is not the one we are in today. The issues are much the same, but the stakes are now much higher. The U.S. tech giants who have said how much they want to work with you, but who oppose everything you do ‑‑ who take your decisions to court, propose nothing substantive of their own, and now have bowed out of this hearing ‑‑ are fighting their battle for continued American dominance of Canadian screens. That battle is part of the larger fight for the future of our country. It is more important now than it has ever been.

4246 Thank you, and we’d be happy to answer your questions.

4247 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to the Writers Guild for your participation in the proceeding, and for your presentation here this morning.

4248 I will start the questioning for the Commission, and we’ll turn things over to my colleagues because I think we have a number of areas that we would like to explore with you.

4249 And maybe I can start where you just ended with your introductory remarks. You said that foreign streamers ‑‑ I think you said tech giants ‑‑ oppose everything we do. But they are still in our market, so are there any opportunities to be gained by their presence?

4250 MR. McDOUGALL: I think there absolutely are opportunities. Thank you for the question, by the way. I think there are opportunities; I just think we shouldn’t leave it up to them to decide what those opportunities are. I think that part of cultural sovereignty means that we, through the Broadcasting Act, through your work, gets to decide what those opportunities should be and ensure that they are held to them. So, certainly there are opportunities, but I feel like they should be Canadians, to decide what those are.

4251 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that. You have said the Commission should not introduce flexibility into the writing room and still count the writer position as Canadian. We have heard ‑‑ and you may have seen some of this on the record ‑‑ but we have certainly heard a lot about how partnerships can benefit Canadian talent. And so, I am wondering if perhaps you could walk us through why you think there may not be benefits for Canadian talent in terms of allowing some flexibility in the writing room.

4252 MR. McDOUGALL: Sure, thank you for that. I think we need to start with the premise that there is already existing flexibility in the system. We’re not actually ‑‑ despite what some people say, it’s not a rigid system at all.

4253 There is flexibility in the points, and there is also ‑‑ well, there are two levels of flexibility in the points. There’s the 6 out of 10 approach, and then I think you may be alluding to the Commission’s 20 percent proposed flexibility component, which I think I have struggled with because it is my understanding of how the Commission certifies series and I have talked to your staff about this as well, so, I think this is correct ‑‑ is that the Commission applies points to episodes, not entire seasons, but then certifies the entire season based on an average of those points.

4254 So, under that process, you can have a given episode being directed by a Canadian, not written by a Canadian; they’ll get the two points. Maybe the next episode is the other way around, and that, even of itself, adds up to quite a bit of flexibility to have a mix of writing rooms or directors, et cetera, et cetera. In fact, it’s basically a hundred percent flexibility because the 6 out of 10 system allows writer or director, so if it’s all directors that are Canadian getting those points, there are no writers. Right?

4255 I think the other point, and maybe I’ll ask some of my other panelists to get into this, is that the 20 percent proposal may imply this notion that if there’s 80 percent of writers, that there’s 80 percent of Canadian control in the writing room. That’s not necessarily the case. Certainly, the showrunner will be at the top of the structure and determining a great deal of the vision and who writes what, but there is no requirement necessarily then, let’s say in a writing room of five writers, that they each work on one episode each, or two episodes each. They can have varying levels of influence on a production, and so I think that’s where some of the concern of, ‘Well, if it’s 20 percent, the influence could be more than that.’

4256 So, Bruce, would you like to add to that?

4257 MR. SMITH: Sure. The fears of flexibility for us are brought up ‑‑ two examples have been presented at these hearings so far as very, very Canadian shows, one called The Sticky by Amazon, who unfortunately couldn’t answer questions on it, and The Handmaid’s Tale. Those are both shows that nobody living in Canada wrote on. Their writing rooms were done in the United States. In the case of The Sticky, it was a Canadian longtime L.A. resident who worked on it, but the writing room wasn’t entirely or even, I believe, a majority Canadian, and it was entirely L.A. resident. And The Handmaid’s Tale is a great Canadian novel. It’s a television series that’s shot in Toronto, like Star Trek does.

4258 No Canadians are getting employed in my industry on those shows, and if those shows are allowed to be Canadian, then it’s entirely out of Canada’s hands whether those shows get made. The IP isn’t owned by Canadians, the producers aren’t Canadians, except the service production work ‑‑ and that’s the nightmare scenario for us ‑‑ that Star Trek and Reacher can take off all the points, hire entire Canadian crews, and somehow qualify as Canadian content when they are definitionally American intellectual property and American cultural property. So, that’s the nightmare scenario for us.

4259 MR. McDOUGALL: And I would just like to add, from a writing perspective, I don’t think we’re at a loss for collaboration opportunities. It’s the opposite. The opposite is the case, where we are constantly being told that you have to work with non‑Canadians, you have to work with Americans, you have to work with Brits. You know, from a storytelling perspective, collaborationally speaking, they are not going to be able to tell Canadian writers what is more Canadian, what is more Canadian sensibility. That’s going to come from Canadians themselves. So, I don’t think we’re in search of collaboration opportunities in that respect.

4260 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that. You just touched on showrunners again in your response, and obviously that is something that the Commission has heard quite a bit about. We just had the Black Screen Office up here before us; I think you were in the room. They called the showrunner ‘the creative force’. You have just said in your response, ‘top of the structure’. You also indicated in your submissions that this is a very important step in terms of the approach to showrunners.

4261 Can we talk about the Canadian resident requirement? I mean, that would exclude Canadians who are building their skills abroad, and I’m wondering how excluding them would benefit the creation of Canadian content in Canada?

4262 MR. McDOUGALL: Thank you for the question. I will start, and then I will check with the rest of the panel to see if they can add to it, because they have the lived experience of this.

4263 I think it is obviously the case that you don’t stop being a Canadian just simply because you crossed the border. Right? I think the issue is that we have a ‑‑ let’s call it ‘the previous system’ or ‘the existing system’ because you are in the process of changing the system, where you had content commissioners who were working at broadcasters in Canada and they lived here and, given the pressures in the industry for writers and content commissioners to sort of be in the same place so that they can pitch each other and do all of that sort of thing, you know, that meant that the writing community for Canadian content was here.

4264 I think there are a few challenges with this space becoming dominated by non‑Canadian writers, and I think the first is, frankly, I don’t think the Broadcasting Act is focussed on benefitting the industry that’s based in Los Angeles. I think it should be more focussed on benefitting the industry and the people and the creators who are here in Canada, and there are some references in the Broadcasting Act to objectives ‘in Canada’, and I think that’s an important distinction.

4265 The other thing is, I really worry that we would create an unintended incentive for people to have to leave. I feel that, if we said residency is not a factor, and the development executives stayed in Los Angeles, then we would basically be telling our screenwriters, ‘You have to leave Canada if you want to have a career,’ because that’s where the decision makers are. And I think that would be a huge risk.

4266 Bruce? Or ...

4267 MR. FARRELL: I lived in LA for 13 years. I’m actually a dual citizen now, because I was in America for many, many years. I’ll say, when I ‑‑ you know, when I lived in America, I spent my money in America, and if we’re talking about putting back into the system, if we’re asking the streamers to do the same thing, we should be asking these writers to do the same thing ‑‑ put money back into the system here. And I proudly moved back in 2017 and now I’m working on shows here and putting my money back into the system.

4268 MR. SMITH: I think what’s really important to understand ‑‑ this is not an issue we wanted to ever become an issue. In particular, since the arrival of the streamers, the way English language content is being produced now is it’s all being written in LA. And when I started in the industry, that wasn’t the way. My first television gig was an American show that shot up here, so they hired some Canadian writers.

4269 The streamers want all English production written in Los Angeles, and at the International Association of Writers Guild, markets that are being presented as very successful ‑‑ the U.K., Australia, New Zealand ‑‑ they were using the term ‘cultural colonialism’ because none of their writers were being hired. Stuff was shooting there. It was good for the crews. There was lots of production. There were no Australian stories being told by Australians. There are no New Zealand stories, is what they were reporting to us, and they were looking with envy at a Canadian system which didn’t just look at who wrote the novel it was based on, but actually looked at whether living writers are getting work to create Canadian stories and tell them.

4270 So, we’re responding to that move ‑‑ the idea that residency is necessary is because we’re in a trade war in our industry too, and barriers and borders are being put up. And I spent my young career not wanting to go to Los Angeles because I was pretty sure I’d succeed and I’d stay there, and I like it here and I built my career here.

4271 I think that stark choice is becoming more stark, and writers are going to be pressured to move to Los Angeles. And if we open the door for that’s how you get Canadian content funding, then that’s the route they’re going to take if they want to write. And that is not something we want to deal with, but we are feeling forced to deal with, because our members are in Los Angeles too, and we are facing a conflict.

4272 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you so much for that.

4273 I know my colleagues have questions as well, so I will keep rolling. You do not support incentive‑based approaches like CPE credits. You’ve obviously heard other intervenors ‑‑ like MPAC, Netflix, Corus ‑‑ suggest that incentives can be used for any number of public policy goals, like the creation of news programming.

4274 So, the question is, can incentives be one of several tools to drive investment and achieve public policy goals?

4275 MR. McDOUGALL: Thank you for that. I think they like incentives because they know they can leave them on the table and do what they want to do anyway. I think that, when it comes to an incentive, the incentive has to be big enough to incent the behaviour that you’re looking for from the entity that you’re looking for it from.

4276 And when we’re talking about the streamers in particular, they are so big ‑‑ these are multi‑billion‑dollar, billion‑billion, hundreds‑of‑billion‑dollar companies. If you just offer them, you know, a literal carrot, they’re going to say, ‘Thank you for that, but I won’t take it, and instead I’ll do what I want to do.’ And I think the pressures for them to continue to do things that either are or look very much like the foreign location service production that they’re already doing ‑‑ that’s what they want to do, and I think they will say, ‘We need incentives,’ and then, if presented with them, smile and nod and say, ‘Thank you, but we’re going to leave that on the table.’

4277 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that.

4278 So, with respect to PNI, you said this morning that you are deeply concerned about that approach. You argue that the Commission needs to keep PNI to continue supporting the creation of Canadian drama, documentaries, and other programs. But there are other intervenors, like Corus, for example, who disagree. So, if online streaming services, particularly those that are making money by creating and streaming PNI programs, are encouraged or even required to produce Canadian content, PNI presumably would keep getting funded and aired.

4279 So, the question is, do we need to maintain PNI requirements for traditional broadcasters?

4280 MR. McDOUGALL: Thank you for the question.

4281 I think we should continue to maintain the requirement across the board. I think it would be unfortunate if we ceded the ground to an entire set of genres which form the core of what most Canadians watch most of the time. We’re talking about drama predominantly. Episodic drama is one of the most popular media of our time anywhere, including all media, right. Everybody watches these shows.

4282 I think it would be disappointing if we completely ceded that space and Canadian broadcasters stepped out of it entirely.

4283 And I also think that the reasons they give for doing it in terms of its riskiness may very well apply equally to the streamers. I think that when ‑‑ obviously, when Netflix began, it was a very PNI genre focused service. In fact, it might have been exclusively those things. Over time, they have expanded their genre offerings. They’re getting into reality and lifestyle and now sports and live events, everything. There’s no reason to think they wouldn’t continue expanding, shifting, changing.

4284 So there’s a real risk ‑‑ I use that word, you know, strongly. There’s a strong risk that if we look at the model today and then presume that it will continue going forward, we’re taking a real chance that our presumptions won’t pan out.

4285 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that.

4286 Perhaps just one last question before I turn things over to the Vice‑Chair of Broadcasting, a really easy one related to AI.

4287 So your collective agreements include safeguards for your members as it relates to AI. Can you talk a little bit about those safeguards and whether they’ve been effective, how they’ve been effective in supporting your members and their creative interests?

4288 MR. McDOUGALL: Yes. And I’ll pass that question to Victoria.

4289 MS. SHEN: Thank you.

4290 So maybe what I’ll do is first I’ll just talk about what those safeguards are and just give you a brief overview of what our language is under our collective agreement and then I can also tell you what ‑‑ after that, I’ll talk about sort of what we have seen since we’ve gotten this language.

4291 So one of the key things is that if producers provide ‑‑ or producers are approaching a writer and they are using content that has been generated in whole or in part by AI, they have to first disclose that that is what they’re doing and then they also have to contract under our collective agreement. Obviously, we have a number of protections under our agreement so if you don’t contract under it, those protections don’t apply.

4292 That source material, that material that they furnish that has been generated by AI in whole or in part, we call it Source Material, so that’s a defined term under our agreement, so capital S, capital M.

4293 Source Material is essentially like a newspaper article or photograph, right, so a producer may provide that to a writer. It doesn’t have any kind of real like legal standing under our agreement. So even in a situation where a producer is providing an entire first draft, we would still call it Source Material. And that is one of the ways that we protect the credit and the compensation for the writer, right.

4294 So even if we get a fully‑formed document, the writer, they still have to get contracted from a first draft.

4295 Writers also warrant that their work is not generated in whole or in part by AI, so the idea that AI could be used as a tool for writing is absolutely prohibited under our agreement. And even prior to us getting this language, we always had an existing warranty under our agreement that writers warrant that their work is original and, secondly, that it doesn’t infringe on copyright.

4296 So this new AI language is really just an extension of what we had previously warranted and, really, I think what we’re preserving isn’t just the job. It’s basically your business model, right. Our writers create original content that producers then can monetize.

4297 We also have a letter of understanding in our agreement that says work that was previously produced under our agreement cannot be used to ‑‑ it’s our position that they can’t be used to train AI.

4298 And moving forward, if a producer wants to be able to contract for that right, they must do so, and there’s a number of procedural protections. We call it sort of informed and conspicuous consent, but basically we just didn’t want to have them sort of slip it into the fine print so they would have to clearly disclose that this is what they’re doing. There has to be a separate signature line. They’d have to disclose like the context in which that training would be used, so on and so forth.

4299 So in terms of how is all of that working out, well, I can tell you that there has not been a single contract where a producer has approached any writer that they are using content that was ‑‑ that had in any way been generated by AI. And so ‑‑ and because there’s a positive obligation to disclose, we would know if that had taken place.

4300 The only language that we have seen in any contract is a production asking the writer to warrant that they will not use AI in their work. And when I talk to some of the other guilds, and while I’m not speaking for them, they have also ‑‑ that is the only language that they have also seen. So there is a general prohibition, actually, from production asking content creators to not use AI.

4301 And so I can say, I think, with confidence that AI is not being used in Canada in a way that is replacing screenwriters.

4302 But in contrast, what I have seen is a proliferation of copyright infringement cases around the world against the use of AI. And I know sort of during these proceedings and in industry panels and trade publications, oftentimes people are talking about AI is everywhere and it’s inevitable, but I think when you talk to the lawyers, what I’m hearing is all the same thing, which is that using AI to create any kind of content continues to be a significant problem, one because AI content is not copyrightable, and then secondly because of the issue of copyright infringement. That technology is using copyrighted content in a way that is ‑‑ we are maintaining that it is illegal.

4303 So I believe ‑‑ there are, I think, significant hurdles before AI technology will be able to use in our industry to create content.

4304 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for that and thank you for answering my many questions.

4305 I will turn things over to my colleague, Vice‑Chair Théberge.

4306 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

4307 Welcome, and thank you for your answers.

4308 I do hope you’re right with respect to AI. I’m not sure I share your optimism, but that’s perhaps for another discussion. I have two questions, but I’ll start with a point of clarification regarding the showrunner.

4309 So I think you’ve made a great case that this is an important position. However, we’ve had several intervenors, mostly from the French language market, saying it doesn’t exist in our world, including people from Telefilm. It doesn’t exist in long features.

4310 And one of the things we’re being asked is whether we should be adding long features film into our definition.

4311 So how do we work this in, then, in a manner that reflects the reality you’ve described but does not create a requirement that a large section of the industry just cannot respect because that’s not how they operate?

4312 MR. McDOUGALL: Thank you for that.

4313 So we have heard some of those perspectives. For one thing, I would say that the Act does allow for differential treatment between English and French markets, so we are speaking for the English market. We don’t purport to speak for the French market.

4314 Of course, the showrunner doesn’t exist on certain other genres. The Commission’s proposal, as I understand it, was to say that where the role does exist, it needs to be Canadian, and I think that that’s appropriate. I think it would apply to any dramatic series, including animated series.

4315 So I don’t know if Bruce wants to speak to that as well.

4316 MR. SMITH: Yeah, I’d love to speak to that because I’ve actually worked ‑‑ I adapted 19‑2 en anglais, 19‑2, and shot in the Quebec model with my series director, Louis Choquette, who normally works in the traditional French television market, which basically shoots television the same way features do, and that’s right. There is no showrunner. The director fills that role, but that requires an agreement from the broadcaster and the industry in general, one, you don’t rewrite the script. You shoot the script as it was shot in French. Whereas in English, the broadcasters are demanding rewrites constantly.

4317 And so we had this interesting thing of shooting a show that had been shot in French in English under those circumstances.

4318 So for Louis, when we were in English, he saw my role as invaluable and we were partnership because the ‑‑ our clients had totally different demands and expectations than the trust he was given in the French model where you go out, you block shoot the entire thing, you go into the editing room and then the network can give notes.

4319 So nobody’s saying that features need to add showrunners or that Quebec TV shows and their model aren’t working. When they work in English for English broadcasters, suddenly you need a showrunner, and that’s part of the job. And the reason the showrunner became a writing role is just efficiency. If something changes radically on set and I can both rewrite it and approve it same day right there, then the show goes on and we shoot a version of the scene without the actor who was in a car accident.

4320 If I can write that and have to wait for Los Angeles or Toronto or somebody to approve or send me a script that may not work, it’s just inefficient, and that’s where the role came from.

4321 And so Quebec is working with a model that has different efficiencies and they don’t need it.

4322 But I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say the job must be held by a Canadian where it exists. Everybody in a show with a showrunner knows who the showrunner is. Everybody.

4323 MR. FARRELL: Can I also just add, every network here in Canada right now is asking young writers to attach a showrunner before they come in and pitch. So even though it’s not a credited position, they ‑‑ you have to have one before you can even tell anyone about your show.

4324 Netflix is asking for it, CBC, Bell, Paramount, Amazon. They all want you to have ‑‑ to bring a showrunner to the table.

4325 And just a quick story about another ‑‑ I did a series called Secret Life of Boys for BBC. And I ‑‑ initially they didn’t have showrunners out there either, but when I went out for the first couple weeks for production, I had to go back to LA on another show I was working on. They didn’t want me to leave because I had made myself invaluable to them and, after that, they started using showrunners on all their other productions.

4326 And you know, we went on to win a BAFTA, which was lovely, and I think they started to see the importance of having a creative vision who is not just there in the writing room, but there on set and there in post to make sure that the vision is seen from the beginning all the way through to the end.

4327 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much for the clarification, and congrats on the BAFTA.

4328 MR. FARRELL: Thank you.

4329 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Intellectual property. A lot of our intervenors have made different proposals with respect to IP ranging from shouldn’t be mandatory, not important, to we should have 100 percent, to 51 percent. So I would be interested whether your organization has a concrete proposal on how we can include IP rights in the definition while, at the same time, incentivizing collaborations and ensuring that Canadian programming is competitive and has access to partnerships with big players who are interested in getting some of the money back from their investment.

4330 So I would be interested whether you’ve got something very concrete in mind.

4331 MR. McDOUGALL: You know, the short answer to that is no. We haven’t taken a position on IP in our written submission. We’re still digesting the positions that others have taken, so you know, we do understand it’s a vitally important issue and we’ll continue to digest what we hear.

4332 The only thing I’ll add in a general sense is we’re Canadian maximalists. We think that Canadians should be all over the system, so that’s a general statement, though, not a specific one which we haven’t provided at this point.

4333 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

4334 Feel free to, in your replies, if you have a specific position that you want to share with the Commission, it would be quite useful. Thank you.

4335 Just one last question. So you state in your submission that the standard for granting confidentiality on data should be very high. Netflix, as you can probably guess, among others, suggests that the publication of Canadian revenues, Canadian expenditures would affect their competitiveness in the marketplace.

4336 How would you weigh the public interest of data transparency with the business interests of those entities we regulate and what type of standard did you have in mind?

4337 MR. McDOUGALL: Thank you for that.

4338 It won’t come as a surprise to hear that we think that the public interest, accountability, transparency should absolutely trump any sort of business interests when it comes to confidentiality. I think that should be the Commission’s priority.

4339 I argued during the passage of Bill C‑11 itself that it was an important accountability and transparency measure for streamers and other platforms that did not have any obligations whatsoever. As somebody who’s been in the sector for a while and can go onto your website and obtain pages and pages, hundreds of pages of reporting from traditional broadcasters and then turn around and see almost nothing from the streamers, I mean, there’s an equity issue there, of course, that broadcasters have to report at that level of detail and streamers do not.

4340 Of course, it’s disappointing that broadcasters would seem to like to reduce their transparency obligations. I think should be the opposite. I think that, at the very least, the streamers should be brought to the level of the broadcasters.

4341 And that sort of belies their argument, I believe, that it’s a competitiveness issue. The streamers have been very competitive in this market while having access to the broadcaster information that’s on your website, so I think ‑‑ I don’t think that that’s ‑‑ that that is how or why they make the decisions that they make or how they succeed. They succeed in their own estimation by making great content that’s globally important and I think that’s where the success comes from.

4342 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We very much appreciate the discussion with the Writers Guild this morning and would like to turn things back over to you for concluding remarks.

4343 MR. McDOUGALL: Thank you.

4344 MR. SMITH: We would like to thank the Commission for its hard work in tackling the enormous task before you. It involves nothing less than reconceptualizing the entire Canadian broadcasting system and doing so in light of a myriad of interests, perspectives and objectives. Not only that, but you are attempting to regulate global corporate giants who plainly don’t want to be regulated and are fighting you every step of the way.

4345 Thank you for going to battle for the objectives of the Broadcasting Act and the public interest. We need you now more than ever.

4346 And for our part, as Canadian screenwriters, that is especially true. We remain a group that is relatively small in numbers, but critical to the content that winds up on the screen. We are perhaps the single most vulnerable creator group in the system.

4347 Because our work is so central to the creative vision of a show, control of who does the writing is coveted by broadcasters, streamers and others. When stakeholders call for flexibility, it is often us that they’re looking at.

4348 We are also unique in that we do not benefit from foreign location service productions, so we cannot rely on those jobs to sustain us through challenging times in the domestic sector, and this is a challenging time. Our hope is for a Canadian broadcasting system that truly maximizes the benefits for all Canadians from content makers and their opportunities to work to viewers and their changes to see themselves and their world reflected back to them, a system that carries our voices to each other and out to the world.

4349 Writing continues to have a unique but often too fragile place in our system, but it is vitally, vitally important. These words that I’m speaking to you now were written. So much starts with words. We hope our words and yours are the start of a bright future for Canadian culture.

4350 Thank you.

4351 THE CHAIRPERSON: What a lovely note to end on. Thank you so much.

4352 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a lunch break and be back at 1:05.

4353 Thank you.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 12 h 18

‑‑‑ Reprise à 13 h 10

4354 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentation of Open Media. Please introduce yourself and your colleague, and you may begin.

Présentation

4355 MR. HATFIELD: Good morning or good afternoon, Commissioners and Commission staff, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I’m Matt Hatfield, and I’m the executive director of OpenMedia, a community‑driven non‑profit that works for an open, affordable, and surveillance‑free Internet. I’m joined today by my colleague Jenna Fung, senior campaigner at OpenMedia, who led our submission on this proceeding.

4356 Our community brings together over 250,000 people across Canada who fight for digital policies that reflect their voices and the reality of their lives. We take the radical view that Canada’s digital policies should be built to serve the needs and wants of ordinary Canadians, first and foremost. That’s what we’re here to ask from you.

4357 Since Bill C‑10 was introduced back in 2020, one question has been most fundamental: what is a Canadian story, and who gets to tell one? The more funding and support that’s available because your content counts as Canadian ‑‑ or is denied to you because it doesn’t ‑‑ the more important the answer to that question is.

4358 We asked our community across Canada to tell us what Canadian content is and received 2,332 responses from people all across the country, all of which were included in our submission. What we heard is very clear: people believe deeply in the value of Canadian content and storytelling.

4359 But we don’t think Canadian content should be excessively sheltered from global competition. In fact, many believe that Canadian stories can and should stand proudly on their own, not hidden away or protected in a bubble. As one community member, Chantelle Grohn from Ontario, put it:

“In our current global market, the CRTC should be helping Canadian creators on the world stage ‑‑ not just the small Canadian one ‑‑ because they can no longer control what Canadians consume. I’d like the next system to work with streaming services to have a Canadian category in the lists. I’d like to hear adverts for Canadian content, and where to find it. I’d like to see Canadian talent promoted in Canadian venues. Meet us where the current world is at ‑‑ [don’t] force the world into the antiquated model of the past.”

4360 So, what is Canadian content? To our community, it’s about storytelling that reflects who we are as people authentically with broader, more inclusive definitions that ensure every voice counts. A huge majority ‑‑ over 85 per cent ‑‑ want content created by Canadians, and over 80 per cent say it’s important that it reflects Canadian culture, history, and values.

4361 This reinforces the result of the CRTC’s own commissioned polling, which found 72 per cent of Canadians see Canadian locations as defining Canadian content, 56 per cent Canadian actors, and 51 per cent Canadian stories, but only 29 per cent thought Canadian content could be defined by behind‑the‑scenes production roles alone.

4362 We were surprised and deeply disappointed to see the CRTC indicate a preliminary intention to provide no additional points in its new definitions of Canadian content for any indicator of Canadian cultural significance. Canadians expect there to be something notably Canadian on screen or on mic when telling a Canadian story, whether that be locations, themes, or actors. They do not like to see shows about the Tudors or President Trump regularly ranked as more Canadian than the Handmaid’s Tale or shows about the Maple Leafs.

4363 While a point system that included content as well as production criteria wouldn’t make that confusing outcome impossible, it would make it significantly less likely. It’s great that that CRTC took the initiative to ask Canadians nation‑wide how we believe Canadian content should be identified, but now you have to act on what you learned. And Canadians have overwhelmingly said they want clear signs of Canadian history and culture to count in defining Canadian content. The system needs incentives for content Canadians recognize themselves in, not just fixed production criteria. If you don’t revise it now, it will keep failing its core purpose, and eventually, it will die.

4364 MS. FUNG: Our community strongly values our cultural roots, past and present. Nearly 80 per cent said Canadian content should reflect where we have been as a country, and almost 74 per cent said it should reflect where we are today. People want Canadian stories that live and breathe with us, not ones that are stuck in a museum.

4365 People are noticing a disconnect between legacy broadcasters and the growing ecosystem of independent creators. Without meaningful bridges between the two, these worlds remain separate, and we are missing out on powerful opportunities for collaboration, innovation, and growth.

4366 Our community respects traditional Canadian media production, but also strongly supports emerging media formats. We are asking you to expand Canadian content into modern formats, such as podcasts, short online videos like TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube content, as well as interactive or experimental media like games and VR/AR experiences. It’s particularly important to invest in productions that mix the virtues of old and new media and support deeper engagement and storytelling, like podcasts and long‑form videos. As a supporter from New Brunswick, Audrey Lounder, put it:

“We need to step up to the plate for our youth who are exploring their creativity through new and emerging channels.”

4367 This isn’t a question of either/or; it’s about building a system rooted in flexibility and inclusion, a system that centres creators that knows how to find a broad, modern audience, one that enables Canadian creators to thrive on global platforms with the right tools, the right training, and an environment that lets their creativity grow.

4368 MR. HATFIELD: Canadian content is about much more than entertainment. It’s about how we understand each other, learn where we come from, and share and shape a shared identity. These stories are the threads that strengthen our social fabric and pass a richer vision of Canada to future generations.

4369 We’ve only touched on the voices of thousands of Canadians who care deeply about our content ecosystem. We’ve shared what we could, but there’s so much more to discuss. So we welcome your questions on our submission, especially regarding user choice in CanCon promotion, supporting digital‑first storytellers, evolving the point system, and news in broadcasting regulation.

4370 OpenMedia and the CRTC’s survey both show strong public support for Canadian content with deep social and cultural value like educational and historical programming, high‑quality journalism, and stories that reflect our regional and cultural diversity. But the point system needs to change to ensure more of that type of content gets made.

4371 Thanks for listening, and we look forward to your questions.

4372 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for your submissions this afternoon. We appreciate you bringing forward a bit of a unique perspective. And when you talk about receiving 2,332 responses from people across the country, that’s very useful and of interest to us as we consider these important issues.

4373 I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott to start the questioning. Thank you.

4374 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you, Chair. And thank you, OpenMedia.

4375 So you’ve raised lots of interesting themes. The one I want to start with is one that you just mentioned in your opening remarks where you called on us to expand into modern digital formats. Do you mean that we should be extending support to digital creation, or that we should be imposing regulation on digital creation, or both? And if it is or to the extent that it’s financial support, could you speak a little bit about the machinery you’re proposing? Like where does that money come from, where does it end up, and how does it get there?

4376 MR. HATFIELD: Yeah, so we think there should be a separation between where regulation applies and where support applies. So we do not think individual Canadian content creators should be regulated as if they were broadcasting. As you know, that’s been our position throughout this lengthy process. But we think it is super valuable to extend them a helping hand in building their careers and getting their content out there. And some of the results we saw in our community survey was that the most enthusiastic people in Canada ever got was for the idea of helping Canadian creators get their start.

4377 So there’s different ways of doing that, but both from a government and from an obligation on platforms perspective, strong support for training, equipment, all the skills and resources they need to get started on content creation. That could, I think, play a tremendous role and help make Canada more of a driver of global culture rather than what sometimes feels like quite an inward look at our culture as just needing special protections.

4378 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So specifically are you thinking about the creation of funds from which the general creators could draw or, you know, broadcasters making investments in training that would then count against credit, like CPE credit?

4379 MR. HATFIELD: Yes, potentially from all these sources. We think all of this money that is taken out of the system for Canadian content creation, some of that money should be getting reinvested in the work of emerging creators and emerging platforms. And obviously, some of these platforms are very, very new; some have been around for 10 or 15 years now. But it’s really urgent that we meet Canadians where they actually are, and don’t just make the content and hope they find it, but actually create for the places that young Canadians especially tend to congregate.

4380 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: How would you respond to the assertion that the best thing we could do for digital creators is just leave them the heck alone?

4381 MR. HATFIELD: True for regulation, not necessarily true for support. So once again, from an expression perspective, broadcasting regulation is such a different way of looking at the world and can impose very deep, chilling impacts when applied to individual content creators online. There’s a role for some government regulation of online content, but that’s more like strictly illegal stuff.

4382 What we would like to see, though, is both platforms being encouraged to provide tools and training to Canadians to get their start there and, potentially, when it comes to equity‑seeking groups, of course, dedicated funding for those groups to receive more support to get their content out there as well, although many have found much support even without government support, of course.

4383 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yes. I want to stay on the digital theme just a little bit longer because I think it could be argued that there’s almost two parallel tracks, kind of the traditionally regulated system and the new innovative digital space. But they very much overlap in terms of telling stories, creating content of cultural value. We’ve heard and seen a lot of successes from Canadians telling their stories in their voices in meaningful ways on those platforms.

4384 To some extent, does the success of those cultural objectives on the unregulated platforms give us permission to step back a little bit? Like do we need to worry a little bit less if we consider the whole world of Canadian culture to include those digital platforms where we see a lot of success? Does that lower the need overall for regulatory intervention in promoting Canadian culture?

4385 MR. HATFIELD: Arguably, but that feels like we’re past that point at this point with the funds are going to be drawn, and so given the funds are in many cases coming out of digital spaces, they also need to be reinvested in digital spaces, else I think we’ll be taking from where many Canadians are today and will be in the future and potentially not ‑‑ potentially drawing resources from there that gets reinvested in places that they are less present, and so it would be sort of an unfortunate outcome, I think, for the vibrancy of Canadian culture on those bases.

4386 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks. I do want to jump then to the cultural elements issue which you’ve expressed and which was quite thoroughly covered in your outreach, so thank you for that. One of the counter‑arguments we’ve heard already throughout this proceeding is that there’s a risk that a Canadian cultural test could be, you know, tokenistic or superficial. What’s a meaningful way to impose a test that can be efficiently administered without falling into that trap of, you know, superficial encapsulation of a Canadian identity?

4387 MR. HATFIELD: Yeah, there is a risk and corner cases will exist. But other jurisdictions with comparable cultural objectives to Canada have done this; right? So of course we know the UK, France, other European countries have found some balance there. Perhaps the balance should be the same for Canada; perhaps it should be different. But we would have expected that the CRTC would already be studying those different systems and charting for yourselves the respective advantages and disadvantages. And if there were a decision to not embrace the approach, we would expect that they would specify in detail why that wasn’t the right approach for Canada, because to our mind, given the very clear indications from Canadians of what they want to see, it’s the most obvious approach.

4388 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Because you did speak to so many Canadians, I’m wondering if you found anything where people discussed those concerns, you know, either about the simplistic approach or I think it’s another aspect of a similar risk in that groups that are traditionally kept out of some definitions of Canadianness or are historically disadvantaged or underrepresented, did anyone speak to the risks of carrying such biases forward into a new system?

4389 MR. HATFIELD: Yeah. I mean, I think that’s why both our community’s comments, many of them in our submission, talks about past and present for Canada. This is by no means about saying, Let’s just think of Canada as who we were 50 years ago or 100 years ago. This is really about potentially having adjustments to the point system that both celebrate our past but also celebrate new stories about who we are specifically today, how has Canada changed in the last five years, and are we telling those stories.

4390 I think when you look at our community feedback, it can be very inspiring in how excited people are about the potential to tell Canadian stories. But people get less excited when it comes to their personal and reality‑based experiences of how those stories are told sometimes. They have very high hopes and some disappointment with how things play out in practice.

4391 And so one of the reasons for that is that the current system doesn’t really encourage or support the kind of explicit representation of their own lives and of the lives of those around them that they want to see on screen. So we’re not asking to require that in an all CanCon designation, but just to add a few points that nudge the system towards that kind of recognition that represents on some level what people are asking for.

4392 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks. I am going to jump again to kind of the point system and the accreditation. So you’re one of a number of stakeholders who’ve proposed kind of a partial accreditation approach. Could we talk about that a little bit? Specifically, I’m interesting in whether you see that as kind of a smooth curve, or is that more of a step function with certain thresholds at, you know, 50 per cent credit for 50 per cent of the points, 75 per cent credit for 75, all the way up to a hundred? Like in kind of very specific terms, what do you see this looking like?

4393 MR. HATFIELD: It’s a great question, and it’s one where I think we do think consultation with and taking input from the producer stakeholders is quite important. As a consumer group, we’re really focused on what people experience and what they want out of the system. So it is possible that a steps system makes sense. I think either some level of either flexibility or partial steps certainly makes sense to us in the system.

4394 Canadians are just very shocked and disappointed when they realize how stark the outcomes are currently where it’s designated CanCon, just this, or it’s out of the system, and they see things in both directions that don’t make sense. I think they would feel much more comfortable if they saw steps in between those, and oh, I can see the reason that it ended up like this, or I can see the reason it ended up like that. A lot of it just doesn’t make sense to Canadians, and that alienates them from the results of the system, frankly.

4395 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I am going to express this in really simplistic terms, like I’m over‑simplifying, but do Canadians see value in having more content that’s at half points versus less content at full points? Does that make sense?

4396 MR. HATFIELD: Yeah, I think so. I think Canadians want more Canada out there. You know? We’re in some ways in a moment of nation‑building, a national crisis. We have the most powerful country in the world saying we’re not a real country, and Canadians have had a really strong reaction to that. People feel very strongly we are a real country, and they want to see that represented around them in all kinds of ways. They didn’t need to be told that by any content creators; that was the instinctive natural reaction. But in that moment, it feels like a huge missed opportunity for our content not to do more to reflect back the strength of our true identity to us.

4397 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So I heard you loud and clear on Canadians’ views with regards to what they actually see on the screen versus what happens behind the camera and who’s involved in production. Did you hear anything ‑‑ so among the various roles that happen behind the camera, do Canadians have views about the relative importance of those? Like do Canadians see value in a Canadian director, you know, being at a higher status or having more creative control than some of the other roles?

4398 MR. HATFIELD: I think if you read through the submissions, there will be people who speak to that. And of course there’s people who say, I’ve been in the industry; this has been my experience; this is what I think is important. Many Canadians don’t have a huge amount of detailed experience with those roles, and so we haven’t adopted a sort of ‑‑ a role‑by‑role form of expressing what people are asking for. It’s more the outcomes of the system rather than necessarily how different roles should be set up that are a key focus.

4399 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So your submissions flagged both the importance of intellectual property ownership as well as the importance of flexibility to engage in partnerships internationally because that’s how a lot of things get produced these days. Could you summarize kind of your views on how to balance those two competing pressures?

4400 MR. HATFIELD: It’s difficult. I mean, I think it was a very strong result from our community that they place a very high value on seeing Canadians rewarded for their IP. At the same time, nothing denies you the rewards of your IP more than your stuff not being made. And I think in many ways more Canadians struggle to get their stuff made more than they see the vast profits from the IPS that aren’t being collected in Canada. So we have somewhat of a mixed view on that one. We’re not sort of strongly in favour of mandatory IP requirements, but it is a very important thing on some level for it to provide points to our community.

4401 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I think the last topic I am hoping to cover with you this afternoon is discoverability. I think it’s two questions, but we’ll see how the conversation goes. So one, I’m interested in your thoughts on whether or not market forces will be adequate to ensure that Canadian content is available and discovered, or is there a regulatory role that’s necessary?

4402 MS. FUNG: Before I move on to directly address your questions, I think there’s a key principle that I want brought up from our community. So our community actually want really strong support for Canadian content discoverability, but not at the cost of user choice. So fundamentally, nothing should be forced on Canadians who don’t want it. Our community loves CanCon. We want more access to Canadian stories, but not at the cost of like losing out on control over what we can watch and how we watch it. So our community is open to any forms of showcasing and promotion, but not mandatory ones or coerced requirements in places people don’t want it. People can freely opt in or opt out. In general, our community is welcome to that kind of idea.

4403 MR. HATFIELD: Yeah, market forces may not do the whole job, but I think the message we hear from our community is there’s nothing they want more than CanCon when they’re looking for it, and nothing that would be more frustrating than having it thrust on them when they very clearly are looking for something else. So we could be open to a pretty broad range of options from the CRTC, as long as they were things people could choose to do or not do. Even, you know, a default toggle of like you start on CanCon vision, you can click it off if you want it would be acceptable.

4404 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. Thank you for that. Those are good perspectives.

4405 And I’m struggling to put this one into a question, but I’m interested in your thoughts on to what extent do the types of the decisions that Canadians make in terms of what they want to watch ‑‑ on the one hand, it seems like we as a regulator would be responsive to the needs of Canadians in promoting those types of shows. On the other hand, a strong case can be made that the most important role of the regulator is protecting important shows that might not have large audiences. So how do you wrangle with that tension between kind of market forces and market failure and the role of the regulator? It’s an ambiguous question, but I’m very interested in your perspective.

4406 MR. HATFIELD: It’s a really interesting question that I don’t know that we have time to go as far as we could on it. But I think one of the strongest results in our survey, in addition to wanting Canadian stories visible, Canadians, a great number of them, want to see exactly what you’re saying. They want to see stories from equity‑seeking and more marginalized communities told as part of the Canadian story. So we think that’s very important. We also thing there is a risk of indefinitely funding content that just never finds any audience.

4407 So it would be great if the CRTC looked at better evaluating and judging what audience Canadian content is finding both overall ‑‑ like is the content being received, is it being appreciated by Canadians at large ‑‑ and also if it’s created to represent a smaller perspective, is it at least finding an audience within one of those communities. Do people from a particular part of the country just absolutely love something, even if it wasn’t finding a nation‑wide audience? That still has value, I think, to most people. It’s when something just never really finds anyone who gets super passionate about it, that feels like an unacceptable long‑term outcome of the system.

4408 MS. FUNG: I just want to add something very quickly. A supporter of ours mentioned to us, Jeff Gillis from Ontario, mentioned:

“Canadian content is actually a good idea, but when it infringes on the right to choose, I would draw my line.”

4409 So we are living in a world and a time where people enjoy in engaging and interacting with their content, but not like in the time when we were just like turning on the radio or TV to receive information. So that’s some of our community members that told us. And so instead, they want to see CRTC encourage discoverability through thoughtful non‑intrusive promotion, because they don’t necessarily want CanCon being imposed on them.

4410 So some possible way of doing it is to actually propose some methods in channels where we have clearly labelled sections or a menu for Canadian content to exist in those environments. So they have access but not necessarily being forced to consume it.

4411 MR. HATFIELD: Yeah, and I will just finally add our community would like to see more user tools for controlling what we see beyond just CanCon. Like if CanCon requirements could influence in a way that just users truly were getting more options about controlling the construction of their feed, maybe they want more CanCon, maybe they want more of a different type of content. It would be great to see pro‑consumer action that gave us more control, because many platforms do design their feeds for their interest, not for the interest of Canadians.

4412 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much. Madam Chair, I will stop there.

4413 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much. We will go over to Commissioner Naidoo.

4414 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. Thanks for being here today.

4415 How do you see the role of emerging and digital first creators in shaping a modern definition of Canadian content, and how do you think that framework should adapt to include them?

4416 MR. HATFIELD: Yes, so on an individual level, no Canadian creator should ever be at risk of being designated not CanCon. We understand that in complex multi‑part productions that have a mix of Canadian creators and non‑Canadian creators, there’s some need to have a point‑based system that determines outcomes there, and that’s where our feedback around some content criteria would come from. But every digital creator in Canada should just by default have a very clear and easy path to being designated Canadian.

4417 In many ways, we can all do what we want in this chamber, and people are out in the world building culture they way they do. You know, culture isn’t created just by people in one industry or another industry. Culture is created by all of us each day. And for young Canadians, as the CRTC is aware, much of their culture is occurring outside any of these traditional channels.

4418 So we think, as the years move forward, we are going to see more and more need for the CRTC to at least provide support for Canadian content there, but we would love to see an aggressive engaging with the positive possibilities for that future rather than kind of waiting until it is inevitable.

4419 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that. You also emphasize Canadian content should compete globally rather than be sheltered, in your words.

4420 Reflecting on calls we’ve heard today for more targeted support, particularly from creators from equity deserving groups, what specific supports or mechanisms, in your view, are necessary to help smaller Canadian creators thrive on international platforms, especially in the face of competition from large U.S. entities?

4421 MR. HATFIELD: I think a relatively old‑fashioned view that people have about content is that to succeed globally, content needs to be stripped of anything that is identifying in particular and unique to a country or region. That is not, I think, what we observe in what’s actually succeeding online. People love particularity, and there is so much Canadian particularity that we could share with the world that we think would have a massive audience if we could package it in the right way.

4422 Now you do need to package it in the right way. There are things that succeed on online channels and things that don’t, but it’s not necessarily about being Canadian or not. Being Canadian is no hindrance. That’s why we’re really emphasizing the need for training and tools and skills that will help launch people into succeeding on these international channels.

4423 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay, thank you so much.

4424 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you so much. We will now go over to Vice‑Chair Theberge.

4425 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Hi. Good afternoon.

4426 I am going to ask a question. I probably know the answer, but it’s always good to get something on the record. Right?

4427 We’ve heard some intervenors, not a lot but some intervenors, including one this morning, suggest we have residency requirements for the writing position. I would imagine that for a digital creator, that could prove to be problematic. But maybe I’m wrong.

4428 I was just curious about whether you had a reaction to this idea that to be able to be certified as Canadian content, the people holding some mandatory position had to actually live in Canda.

4429 I’m just interested in knowing your views and whether this is a reality, this works with your reality or this would, on the contrary, create issues for the people that you represent.

4430 MR. HATFIELD: I don’t think we would support that. There are many paths of being Canadian, and one of them is, of course, being a person who spends a lot of time outside of the country and goes back and forth, and maybe has discovered amazing communities, after growing up in Canada, elsewhere, and maybe always had deep ties to other regions and moved back and forth.

4431 So, we prefer an expansive, not a really strict definition of that title.

4432 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you for your presentation and for answering our questions. We will turn things back over to you.

4433 MR. HATFIELD: Well, I mean, there are a couple things we haven’t covered in detail.

4434 But very briefly, I think a key consideration that’s come up here and there through this proceeding is the role of news. So, another really strong input from our community and from the CRTC’s own survey was that not every form of Canadian content is the same and that news is overwhelmingly the Canadian content they need the most, and that it is not being provided at the rate that they need.

4435 At the same time, we also hear from our community a lot that they are confused by the complexity of the different measures around news that exists today. There is money from the CRTC and from government and different programs, and this and that, and they hear that’s it’s creating bias, and they don’t know.

4436 We think there is an argument for some funding for news for now from the broadcasting system, but we also think the system as it exists is too complex and is not meeting the need.

4437 So much of what needs to happen is outside the purview of the CRTC for now, but we do think the CRTC and government should be considering that a simpler system for public news support is necessary; that it needs to be something that Canadians can very easily look at and understand how it works and that it is not biased, that it’s not going to occur from creating three or four or five complex funds that lack transparency.

4438 So anything that occurs for news now in this proceeding should be transitional, is understandable but should build towards that more sustainable long‑term system.

4439 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you for sharing your perspectives on news.

4440 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

4441 We will now hear the next participants. I would ask Racial Equity Media Collective, with one person appearing remotely, Racial Equity Screen Office appearing remotely, and Fae Pictures to come to the presentation table.

4442 We will hear each presentation, which will then be followed by questions by the Commissioners to all participants.

4443 We will begin with the presentation by Racial Equity Media Collective.

4444 Amar, I just want to make sure that you can hear me correctly.

4445 MR. WALA: Yes, I can, thank you.

4446 THE SECRETARY: Perfect, thank you.

4447 You may begin your presentation.

Présentation

4448 MR. CARRINGTON: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Panel Members and Commission staff.

4449 My name is Julian Carrington, and I am the Managing Director of the Racial Equity Media Collective, or REMC.

4450 I am joined remotely by Independent Film Maker and REMC Board Member, Amar Wala, who is the principal of production company Scarborough Pictures. Amar is available to address questions following my prepared presentation.

4451 REMC is a national not‑for‑profit organization committed to equity for racialized creators in Canada’s screen industries. My remarks today will focus on the specific need for greater flexibility by equity deserving communities in relation to the determination of Canadian programming.

4452 Canada’s film and television industry is notable for its high degree of protectionism. It has long been understood that without robust regulation to foster home‑grown productions, the English Canadian market in particular risks being overwhelmed by American programming exports.

4453 Amid efforts by the current U.S. government to reverse diversity initiatives in both the public and private spheres, it is additionally important that the Commission pursue regulations that encourage all undertakings operating in Canada, including U.S. based streamers, to uphold the Canadian values of diversity and inclusion, ensuring support for the creation and availability of programming by members of black and other racialized communities as mandated by the Online Streaming Act.

4454 It is also crucial that the Commission in its efforts to shield the Canadian industry does not inadvertently reinforce systemic barriers that disproportionately impact creators from equity deserving communities.

4455 Canada’s current co‑production framework exemplifies such barriers. In theory, this framework exists to provide a vital measure of flexibility to all Canadian producers by allowing for international partnerships beyond the bounds of the point system.

4456 In application, however, this framework is overwhelmingly Euro‑centric, providing few meaningful pathways for black and racialized producers seeking to hire globally marketable talent from their diasporic communities or to engage in culturally authentic collaborations with peers from the global south.

4457 Of Canada’s 57 co‑production agreements, 34 are with European countries. In contrast, across the entire regions of Africa, Central America, the Caribbean and Southeast Asia, Canada has co‑production agreements with just seven countries. Canada has no treaty with Nigeria, for example, nor Jamaica, nor Vietnam. And even where Canada does have treaties with non‑European countries, many are rarely used because it has proven impractical to meet their terms.

4458 According to telephone data for the five years encompassing 2020 to 2024, Canadian producers engaged in a total of 264 treaty co‑productions, but just 15 of those, less than 6 percent, were with countries in the global south. Asian countries notably accounted for only two of those co‑productions, less than 1 percent. By contrast, 83 percent of those co‑productions involved European countries and 90 percent involved countries that are majority white.

4459 If the Commission is not mindful of this stark imbalance, we risk entrenching a two‑tiered system where non‑racialized producers can readily leverage co‑productions to access the global market while black and racialized creators will remain largely siloed within a domestic framework that has not proven historically receptive to our narratives and is not readily oriented towards culturally authentic story‑telling by members of our communities.

4460 As a further illustration of the structural barriers faced by racialized creators in Canada, we wish to briefly note the submission by John Schoales of Toronto Metropolitan University, who appeared before the Commission on May 14th.

4461 We echo Mr. Schoales’ concern that the narrow focus on nationality contributes to a dynamic where it is particularly difficult for newcomers to enter the film and television industry, because their labour cannot be counted towards Canadian certification until they become permanent residents.

4462 This is an issue that overwhelmingly impacts racialized persons, given census data indicating that 83 percent of non‑permanent residents are visible minorities.

4463 The government’s policy directions have specifically called upon the Commission to consider the challenges and obstacles faced by black and racialized creators. We submit that the issues we have cited are clear examples of such obstacles.

4464 To ameliorate these and other barriers, REMC urges the Commission to provide regulatory flexibility specifically for projects owned and led by members of equity deserving communities.

4465 As detailed in our written intervention, we propose that this flexibility should include permitting such projects to be certified as Canadian where: (a) they achieve a simple majority, e.g. six out of ten or eight out of 15 on the applicable Key Creative Point Scale; and (b), at least 60 percent of the production expenditures are paid to Canadian individuals or companies versus the current minimum threshold of 75 percent.

4466 The measure of flexibility that we are proposing are consistent and ‑‑ sorry.

4467 The measures of flexibility that we are proposing are consistent with the broader necessity of protecting opportunities for Canadian talent. Under this proposal, IP ownership would remain with the Canadian producer, and it would remain necessary for those producers to hire mostly Canadian creative teams.

4468 Ultimately, our proposal is a modest one, but its implications could be transformative, allowing black and racialized producers greater latitude to hire for cultural authenticity and to orient their projects towards the global market in a manner that is at present significantly impeded.

4469 In proposing these measures, we have taken inspiration from the U.K.’s current national certification test, which recognizes diversity as a value to be fostered and awards points to projects based on their significant or outstanding reflections of British diversity.

4470 We contend that a Canadian certification test should likewise recognize that our diversity is a value to be celebrated. In an increasingly globalized content market, Canada’s highly diverse population should afford our stories a competitive advantage.

4471 We urge the Commission to permit creators from equity deserving communities to begin to truly fulfil that potential.

4472 As I conclude, I note that the Commission has recently introduced an Indigenous Relations team to help make the CRTC and its processes more accessible to the indigenous community. REMC applauds this step, and we hope that the Commission will soon be in a position to announce a similar initiative to fulfil its mandate to provide meaningful and ongoing engagement opportunities for members of equity deserving communities.

4473 Thank you for the opportunity to comment today, and I look forward to your questions.

4474 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

4475 We will now hear the presentation of Racial Equity Screen Office, appearing remotely.

4476 Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

4477 I think you are muted.

Présentation

4478 MS. LEE: Hello? Can people hear me?

4479 THE SECDRETARY: Yes, we can hear you.

4480 MS. LEE: Thank you.

4481 Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Panel Members and Commission staff.

4482 My name is Barbara Lee, and I am the founder and Board Chair of the Racial Equity Screen Office, or RESO. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

4483 I would like to begin by stating that RESO supports ISO’s recommendation on the importance of ensuring a clear distinction between Canadian content and indigenous content.

4484 RESO is a national not‑for‑profit organization based in Vancouver that serves as a centre for racialized content creators and leads strategy and advocacy for racial equity and funding and access across Canada.

4485 Although RESO was incorporated in 2021 as a separate entity with an expanded national focus to serve people of colour, it was built on the nearly 30 years of foundational work of the Vancouver Asian Film Festival, Canada’s oldest Asian Film Festival and an early champion for representation in the audiovisual sector.

4486 RESO’s mandate and core activities are to create infrastructure and pathways for the creation and distribution of racialized Canadian content to larger markets through co‑productions and collaborations. By working with industry partners and government to improve and transform policies, RESO creates a unique program, or unique programs, that generate opportunities for racialized creatives, both nationally and internationally.

4487 For the last year and a half RESO has worked with (indiscernible) in UBC on a research study of Canada’s international co‑productions over the last ten years. The report will be released during RESO’s East by Northwest, or EXNW, Global Creative Summit this July in Vancouver.

4488 This presentation highlights some of the early findings that pertain to the Commission’s vision of a modernized approach where Canadian intellectual property rights are strengthened and protected, as well as ensuring continued international investments in the Canadian production system.

4489 One highlight from the study revealed that of Canada’s 57 co‑production treaties and memorandums of understanding, those outside of Europe, particularly Asia, Africa and Latin America, have been woefully under‑utilized, in many cases non‑existent.

4490 And this is not due to a lack of interest from international partners, but rather systemic barriers within the Canadian industry, such as the use of European co‑production models for non‑European regions, a lack of awareness or support infrastructure, and limited flexibility in CanCon qualifications.

4491 In fact, from 2014 to ‑‑

4492 THE SECRETARY: I am sorry. Can you just slow down a little bit? The interpreters are having difficulty following.

4493 MS. LEE: Sorry. I am trying to keep within my five minutes.

4494 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

4495 MS. LEE: In fact, from 2014 to 2023, there were a total of 505 bipartite film and television co‑productions and only six were with Asian countries. Moreover, this under‑utilization represents a missed opportunity to advance Canada’s competitiveness on the world stage. Strengthening the use of these treaties through targeted outreach, capacity building for racialized producers and a modernized ‑‑

4496 THE SECRETARY: Sorry, when you touch your mic, we cannot hear you anymore clearly.

4497 MS. LEE: I’m sorry. Can you hear me better now?

4498 THE SECRETARY: Maybe just move it a little bit closer to your mouth? We could hear you.

4499 MS. LEE: Is this better?

4500 THE SECFRETARY: Yes.

4501 MS. LEE: All right. So, I will start again.

4502 Moreover, this under‑utilization represents a missed opportunity to advance Canada’s competitiveness on the world stage. Strengthening the use of these treaties through targeted outreach, capacity building for racialized producers and modernized IP frameworks would enable Canadian creators to retain rights, form equitable partnerships and access untapped markets.

4503 Given this, RESO supports the proposed shift to a 15‑point system and agrees with setting the threshold for qualifications at nine points. We also recommend granting one point to projects led by majority racialized owned Canadian production companies.

4504 An additional point should also be granted to projects that meaningfully acknowledge a Canadian location, whether through dialogue, setting or visuals, as a measure to address ongoing concerns around Canadian location erasure.

4505 Prominently featuring Canadian locations that only reinforces culturally identity but also supports ‑‑

4506 THE SECRETARY: I’m sorry. I think it’s when you move. When you’re moving forward, we cannot hear you anymore.

4507 MS. LEE: Can you hear me now?

4508 THE SECRETARY: Yes.

4509 MS. LEE: Okay. So, I won’t move at all.

4510 So what we would like to do is to make sure that there’s a measure to address ongoing concerns around Canadian location erasure. Prominently featuring Canadian locations not only reinforces cultural identity but also supports future domestic production and tourism growth.

4511 Furthermore, we propose a hybrid program for projects led by majority racialized‑owned Canadian companies to have the required minimum Canadian expenditure to be adjusted to 60 percent for co‑productions, and this hybrid program can start with non‑European treaty partners.

4512 This targeted flexibility would encourage greater uptake of co‑productions with countries we already have treaties with, but then we will not have to wait for treaties to be modernized, which can take years, if not decades, to be updated.

4513 It would also empower racialized Canadian producers to work with talent from their own diasporic communities or engage in culturally grounded collaborations while recognizing the currency disparities that exist in many of these regions.

4514 The U.S. is shifting away from equity deserving groups, and the threat of annexation highlights the urgent need for Canada to protect and elevate its own distinct culture and content. We must take deliberate action to amplify Canadian voices, especially those of racialized communities. We cannot depend on American streamers to tell our stories. That responsibility and opportunity belongs to us.

4515 Therefore, RESO recommends that the Commission uphold its requirement for programs of national interest, PNI, which are essential to supporting Canadian content. We support the Commission’s position that both traditional broadcasters and online streaming services should have Canadian program expenditure, CPE, obligations.

4516 To advance equity, we urge that a minimum of 35 percent of CPE be allocated to black and racialized creators, with specific attention to those at the intersection of equity deserving communities, including disabled creators, in order to address persistent funding and access disparities.

4517 Finally, we strongly recommend investing in the development of a Canadian star system as attaching recognized talent significantly improves a project’s chances of financing and distribution.

4518 For racialized creators, the lack of (indiscernible) established talent from our communities due to historical under‑representation adds another barrier to success, one that targeted investment can remove.

4519 Ultimately, the definition of Canadian content must evolve to reflect a modern inclusive and globally connected industry that leverages racialized Canadians’ advantages while safeguarding Canadian creative leadership.

4520 We also request that the Commission fulfil its mandate to ensure meaningful and ongoing engagement with racialized and equity deserving communities by establishing a dedicated advisory or discussion group similar in structure and purpose to the existing official language minority committees’ consultation process.

4521 Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your questions. And I apologize for the ‑‑

4522 THE SECRETARY: No worries. We will now hear the presentation of Fae Pictures.

4523 Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

4524 MR. JOSHI: Thank you.

4525 Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff. My name is Shant Joshi. I am President and Executive Producer at Fae Pictures, a production company based in Toronto and New York, on a mission to decolonize Hollywood by creating cinematic experiences and empathy.

4526 Previously, I sat at this table as co‑chair on the Board of Directors for BIPOC TV and Film. Over the past year and a half, I have been a member of CMPA’s regulatory committee, and over ten years ago I cofounded and am an ongoing sponsor of the Future of Film Showcase, a must attend event in Toronto dedicated to championing emerging Canadian film makers and their stories.

4527 Today I speak to you in my capacity as a proud independent Canadian producer.

4528 In just the last five years, the content that I and my team at Fae Pictures have produced, both inside and outside of the Canadian content system, have achieved monumental feats in spaces like the Academy Awards, the Emmy Awards, the Canadian Screen Awards, the GLAAD Media Awards, the South African Film and TV Awards, Sundance, Cannes, Berlin, Venice, and at TIFF.

4529 Unfortunately, in my experience across nearly all success metrics, including with regards to financial return, audience engagement, critical acclaim and awards recognition, under the pre‑existing Canadian content system, the less Canadian that the project was, the greater its success. Or, in other words, the more that a project subjected itself to the Canadian system, the less successful it has been. The only metric of success that the Canadian content system has managed to achieve, from my point of view, is the continued survival of our work by virtue of the continued subsidization of our projects.

4530 So in your review of the definition of Canadian content, I ask if this is exclusively an opportunity for us content creators to just keep our job, continuing the status quo of surviving through subsidy after subsidy, or is this an opportunity for us to thrive by changing the face of Canadian content through partnering with global streamers and reaching millions of viewers inside and outside of our borders?

4531 For whatever it’s worth, I prefer to spend my five minutes speaking to the latter, because I didn’t pursue this career just to make content that nobody watches and pay my rent. I pursued this career because I dared to dream.

4532 In my written intervention I go into extensive detail into a Canadian Key Creative 20 Point System, reductions to the Canadian cost threshold, IP rights retention requirements, international market exploitation standards, equity and genre considerations and stronger data collection methods to allow our industry to better adapt to a disrupted and changing market.

4533 While I welcome any and all questions regarding those detailed proposals and recommendations, I want to focus on a single recommendation that I hope you will seriously contemplate: a simple and consistent requirement that Canadian content, at a minimum, achieve a 60 percent threshold across Canadian creative points, Canadian expenditures and IP rights retention.

4534 Now more than ever, taking on a 60 percent threshold would empower Canadian content creators to tell their Canadian stories and bring Canadian talent to the global stage. A 60 percent threshold ensures that Canadian writers ‑‑ yes, writers ‑‑ and directors, and producers, cast and department heads, remain in the driver’s seat behind any project that seeks to meet your regulatory requirements for Canadian content production, broadcasting and streaming.

4535 Canadian content creators can look left and look right across the amazing talent pool that exists within our borders to work with Canadian citizens, permanent residents and namely landed immigrants who have been the key driver behind Canada’s economic productivity, innovation and overall population growth.

4536 Additionally, whether to attract a wider audience because of star power, authenticity or just sheer skill and talent, Canadian content creators would be empowered to invite the best that the world has to offer to work on our Canadian content.

4537 In our Sundance and GLAAD Award winning Canadian documentary Framing Agnes, which was an eight out of ten production, 35 percent Canadian cost spend, 100 percent Canadian‑owned production, we brought on board trans and gender non‑conforming Americans, cinematographers Aubree Bernier‑Clarke, Ava Benjamin Shorr, and editor Brooke Sebold, to collaborate with trans and gender non‑conforming Canadians, cinematographer LuLu Wei, and editor Cecilio Escobar, creating opportunities on both sides of the 49th Parallel.

4538 Not qualifying as certifiable Canadian content, we lost value on our Crave license sale, but gained substantial value in international sales to the U.S., Poland, Italy, and New Zealand, grossing over $150,000 in profit.

4539 In our Pakistani Academy Award entry and Canadian Screen Award‑winning film In Flames, which was an 8 out of 10, 50 percent Canadian cost spend, 100 percent Canadian‑owned production, we brought on board Kazakhstani cinematographer Aigul Nurbulatova and Pakistani newcomer, actress Ramesha Nawal, to collaborate with Pakistani‑Canadians, writer/director Zarrar Kahn, and actor Omar Javaid, producing some of the most mesmerizing visual images to come out of a South Asian Canadian film ever.

4540 Not qualifying as certifiable Canadian content, we lost value again on our Crave license, but gained substantial value in international sales to France, the U.K., Scandinavia, Spain, Singapore, Taiwan, the Middle East, and Australia, generating upwards of $175,000 in profit internationally.

4541 In our Canneseries‑premiering drama series, Streams Flow From a River, which had episodes between 8 and 9 out of 10, 99 percent Canadian cost spend, 100 percent Canadian‑owned production, we brought on board a Writers Guild of Canada member ‑‑ but an Indian landed immigrant, so not a Canadian citizen or permanent resident ‑‑ writer Marushka Jessica Almeida, and Canadian Cinema Editors member and Chinese landed immigrant, editor Jake Lee, to collaborate with three Asian‑Canadian non‑guild writers and Chinese Canadian writer/director Christopher Yip, to represent the Asian immigrant experience in Canada in its most authentic light.

4542 As a web series funded through the CIPF system, this award‑winning project generated no international sales, as the market was not looking for short‑form series, but managed to secure a small $25,000 pre‑license from Canadian broadcaster Super Channel.

4543 In our Canadian Screen Award‑nominated drag queen film, Queen Tut, which was a 9 out of 10, 94 percent Canadian cost spend, 100 percent Canadian‑owned production, we brought on board American trans star and trailblazer Alexandra Billings to collaborate with Syrian‑Canadian rising star Ryan Ali and Egyptian‑Canadian director Reem Morsi, to depict an underrepresented Canadian LGBTQ+ community who are in the midst of losing their spaces to gentrification in Toronto.

4544 While the film as certified as Canadian content, it generated far more value through its Crave and CBC licenses, totaling around $190,000 compared to its small‑scale sales in the U.S., U.K., and Latin America, totaling just under $18,000 internationally.

4545 Now, I hear the dissenters who believe that this hearing is the final frontier for their livelihoods, that if this body does not regulate Canadian content in their image, our industry risks further contraction through dilution of our stories. What I struggle with is that these dissenters don’t seem to actually trust Canadian content creators to be in the driver’s seat, to make the right choices for their stories. Instead, they would rather entrust this quasi tribunal to strictly define what is Canadian content, instead of Canadian content creators themselves.

4546 That mentality is what brought us here in a system inaccessible to international investment, that pushed away talented Canadians into foreign markets, and so a system that lacks the benefit and value of reaching a wider audience. It is a system where only a small number of exceptional projects break out. I certainly don’t hope that in an increasingly contracting industry, only a minority of projects in the Canadian system become successful, sustainable career‑builders. I truly believe that Canadian content creators are capable of so much more, if only they were empowered to build their project and tell their story in the way that they see fit.

4547 Building Canadian content in collaboration with our brothers and sisters within and beyond our borders, to me, is inherently Canadian. In a time of rising nationalism, fascism and anti‑globalism, Canada made a clear statement in our recent election: It is time to diversify our partnerships inside Canada and outside Canada, and build a strong, robust, and sustainable industry for generations to come.

4548 Thank you for the opportunity to comment today, and I look forward to your questions.

4549 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to the Panelists for joining us today and sharing your perspectives with us.

4550 I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Paquette, to start with the questioning for the Commission. Thank you.

4551 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you, and thank you to the three organizations for your participation.

4552 I’d like to start with a question for either Mr. Carrington or Mr. Wala. The REMC intervention suggested to incorporate a diversity factor as a cultural element within the certification framework. Many other intervenors argue against that, as it would be difficult to define, unpredictable; it would differ across the country.

4553 How do you think the diversity factor can be integrated into the point system while avoiding biases and implementation challenges?

4554 MR. CARRINGTON: Thank you for the question. I can take this one.

4555 So, I should emphasize that the approach that we have proposed would not require the Commission to engage in any kind of subjective cultural assessment. Our submission specifically calls for the Commission to implement a diversity factor to the CanCon determination formula, which would help to overcome some of the structural barriers that I referred to previously. The test that we have proposed is objective and limited. It does not require the Commission to consider setting or point of view or anything of that nature.

4556 Our choice to frame the proposal in relation to cultural elements is largely a reflection of the inspiration that we drew from the current British certification test, where in the U.K., that test recognizes diversity as an element of a work’s contribution to British culture. That test awards up to 2 points in their 35‑point scale. For this reason, we chose to propose the diversity factor sort of under the heading of a ‘cultural test’ in our written intervention, but we don’t want that ‘cultural test’ label to be a distraction.

4557 The diversity factor that we proposed is based on ownership, is based on the creative team, is based on very objective criteria that don’t call for really any, again, subjective broader cultural test. So, I think it’s maybe a bit of a red herring that yes, we framed that response in relation to the cultural test, partly based on the inspiration, but it’s a straightforward and limited proposal.

4558 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, different from cultural elements. I understand.

4559 And why do you think this distinction should be inside the definition itself, in addition to other measures like Canadian programming expenses and funding? Why inside the definition itself?

4560 MR. CARRINGTON: It is not actually necessary, I suppose, that the diversity factor be applied precisely in the manner that we have proposed it. The diversity factor that we proposed ‑‑

4561 MR. JOSHI: I think just the point of it is to qualify a project for additional flexibility, beyond the regular sort of standard scale. If you had that sort of qualifier, you would qualify for a different standard, basically.

4562 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And you think it’s important to do that at the level of the creation of a production?

4563 MR. JOSHI: In order to qualify as Canadian content, yes, because you wouldn’t even be able to reach CPE or reach any of the subsequent thresholds because you wouldn’t even qualify as Canadian content. Like, let’s say, for example, the 60 percent threshold; right? If you were, say, 65 percent, you’re under 75 percent, let’s say you oppose 75 percent for regular Canadian content but you’ve created a lesser threshold for diverse content. If you are in that sort of gap in between, you’re still minimum 60 percent, you would need to be able to qualify still, to even start talking about CPE and all that other stuff. You know what I mean?

4564 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: M’hmm. Okay.

4565 MR. CARRINGTON: Yeah, I think Shant conveys it well, but ultimately, the diversity factor that we are proposing is comprised of sort of particular measures that, again, include the 60 percent threshold that Shant has proposed. It reflects a prerequisite, again, of majority ownership by members of equity‑deserving communities; requires that the producer be a Canadian who identifies as a member of an equity‑deserving community.

4566 So, you could implement sort of each of those measures individually, but we were packaging in a way that would hopefully make sort of conceptual sense and provide a clear qualifying trigger as to which projects would be subject to that diversity measure.

4567 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, I understand.

4568 And now, maybe a question for Ms. Lee. You agreed with the Commission that the modernized definition should support an incentivized creation of Canadian content for equity‑deserving groups. In fact, you came with a very detailed proposal, and thank you for bringing this to the table. Are there any other tools or regulatory measures, other than incentives, that you believe the Commission should use to encourage the creation and promotion of racialized content?

4569 MS. LEE (Off microphone / Sans microphone)

4570 THE SECRETARY: I think you are muted.

4571 MS. LEE: Thank you for the question. It is a type of incentive, but we need to train and also to give more support and create infrastructure. I would say that that’s what’s missing, and that’s why many of our organizations offer programs to train up and incubate the talent, to get them ready and at a level playing field, because they’ve been so underrepresented and underfunded prior to this.

4572 When I brought the example, I think that Canadian diasporic communities ‑‑ the racialized communities ‑‑ have a really great advantage, and so it’s not just the incentives of giving the filmmakers, but also agencies and funders creating opportunities to build infrastructure. We have to build up the tools on how to get our stories out there, and also distribution is a very part of this. So, the “incentivication” is always better. You know, the carrot’s always better than a stick.

4573 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: M’hmm.

4574 MS. LEE: Having that 35 percent for the CPE is a sort of a stick. It’s making sure that, because if you don’t have a percentage or you don’t have a target, then it will never happen. So, that’s why we say that the CPE should be set at 35 percent, and ‑‑

4575 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, you don’t –

4576 MS. LEE:  ‑‑ have the infrastructure to make it happen. So, it has to be both.

4577 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And do you believe in the carrot more or less than the stick?

4578 MS. LEE: Well, depends on the person, I think, sometimes. But I would say the incentive ‑‑ it’s always, you know, sweeten the pot and people will ‑‑ you know, it’s like the tax credits. It’s the incentive that makes people want to do something. Yeah, I believe in the carrot being more encouraging than the stick.

4579 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you.

4580 MS. LEE: You have to have the stick, though. You have to have the stick.

4581 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you.

4582 No, back to you, Mr. Joshi, a question. In your FAE Pictures intervention, you provide a very detailed proposal of point system, and by the way, thank you because we don’t have so many intervenors who came to the table with such a detailed proposal. You note that because very few Canadians fill the role of showrunner in Canadian productions, Canadian producers would benefit from non‑Canadian experienced showrunners to provide training.

4583 Even if the title ‘Showrunner’ itself is less used in production, we have many, of course, writers, producers, directors in Canada. Can you explain why you think training by non‑Canadians is necessary? And explain how the Commission could incent training to expand the pool of Canadian showrunners?

4584 MR. JOSHI: I mean, if we are speaking from today, I think across Canada, we can qualify and, you know, each broadcaster ‑‑ the CBC, Crave, Bell Media ‑‑ they all have a list of a handful of Canadians who qualify as greenlight‑able showrunners; right? And it’s not that big of a list. It’s maybe ‑‑ I don’t want to venture to guess. I haven’t seen that list, but I know it exists. But I’d say, let’s say, between 20 and 30 across Canada.

4585 And if we’re talking about bringing Netflix into the system, bringing Amazon into the system, the ideal scenario is that we’re creating more content, and so, even today, I think nearly every Canadian showrunner is stretched in terms of the projects that they’re on to qualify, and even still, after they do get on projects, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the project will get green‑lit. So, I mean, I’m definitely in favour of training.

4586 I think there’s definitely a lot of skilled writers in Canada that can end up becoming showrunners. I don’t think so simplistically, necessarily, that ‑‑ let’s say ‑‑ I think Canadian showrunners can train Canadian showrunners. You know? It’s I don’t think necessarily we need to bring non‑Canadian showrunners, but it’s always helpful when you have a bandwidth issue ‑‑ you know, we had a huge bandwidth issue in 2022 when the streamers were fighting against each other and stealing crews from each other and stealing ‑‑ it was really crazy in 2022, right before the strikes. And that meant that we had less access to talent.

4587 And so, and sometimes in those inflection points, you need to find talent wherever you can find it. And if you can open up your borders and say ‑‑ well, not open up completely, but, let’s say, you know, look out to the seven billion people that exist around the world and say, ‘I need someone who’s talented to come in on my show,’ that’s a great opportunity.

4588 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you.

4589 Now, the REMC also proposed that flexibility should be granted for BIPOC creators to cast internationally‑recognized actors. You stated that this can be crucial for securing foreign sales and distribution. I feel, by the way, that this proposal is very near what the foreign online services are suggesting. So, according to your proposal, would a production, as an example, with Samuel Jackson or Denzel Washington qualify under our definition?

4590 MR. CARRINGTON: I will let Amar answer this one generally, but maybe just as a precursor, I don’t think that we can always let a concern of sort of incursions from America be our guiding light here. I think there’s a danger of creating a dynamic where we’re almost trying to fence the U.S. out and we inadvertently fence in creators from global diaspora communities and make it harder for them to hire talent. So, I wasn’t necessarily thinking of Denzel Washington; I was thinking of perhaps, you know, an Egyptian or a Sudanese or Vietnamese performer that might have a global following.

4591 But Amar has been waiting patiently to contribute, so I’ll let Amar take the balance of this response.

4592 MR. WALA: Yeah, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.

4593 I mean, my answer to that is that Samuel Jackson has already been in a very famous Canadian film called The Red Violin, which was made a long time ago and is a tremendous success story for Canada. And it is extremely commonplace for Canadian directors to cast American lads in Canadian films in order to increase the marketability and the sales power of those films.

4594 Last year, Blackberry, which actually started off as a television project but inevitably ended up as one of the most successful Canadian films of the last few years, had Glenn Howerton in its lead role. Glenn Howerton is an American. And so, it is extremely common. It’s a normal practice. Most of David Cronenberg’s films star Viggo Mortensen. They have a tremendous working relationship. Mr. Mortensen is, of course, not a Canadian.

4595 So, it’s very commonplace. Where it doesn’t happen as much is in television, and particularly because the CMF has a 10 out of 10 rule, and so that can make things quite difficult in particular for BIPOC creators and BIPOC producers, and I can give an example from my own work.

4596 I had a film called Shook in TIFF last year that will be released this summer by Elevation Pictures, and it stars a wonderful Canadian actor named Saamer Usmani, and we did receive some money from the CMF, and it’s very rare for feature films to receive money from Telefilm and CMF together because the programs don’t always fit together. But there is a wonderful program called the Program for Racialized Communities at the CMF that we qualified for.

4597 Now, because it was CMF, our project had to be 10 out of 10, and there was the chance, before we cast Mr. Usmani, who is Canadian, that we could have potentially casted someone who is a non‑Canadian but a much, much more well‑known actor, universally in the world, to play that role. If we had cast that actor, we would not have been able to get the nearly three‑quarters of a million dollars we got from the CMF for the film, because we would have broken their 10 out of 10 rule.

4598 So, these things are very new and these institutions are trying to work together as new funds come online, to sort of make things easier for BIPOC producers, but the challenge for us not just about funding our films and getting them made in Canada; it’s also about what happens after they premiere at places like TIFF and Cannes and things like that. And the reality is, we have done, frankly, a poor job in Canada, and I would say in the West in general, of cultivating stars from diasporic communities who are primarily English‑speaking actors. Right?

4599 So, for myself, as a South Asian producer and director who is constantly looking at South Asian casts, there are only a handful of names I can give larger companies that would move the needle in North America for me. And until those numbers get bigger, until those lists get bigger, it is important that I be able to look outside Canadian borders for those roles.

4600 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And if we come to the conclusion that it is in fact useful to include international actors into Canadian production, why not extend this flexibility to the whole ecosystem, and what would be the impact on the point system? How would it work?

4601 MR. CARRINGTON: I can pick that up. So, we have proposed this flexibility in specific relation to equity‑deserving communities in part because with regard to Black and racialized communities in particular, the flexibilities that are afforded under the co‑production framework are not practically accessible to us. So, there’s an acute need; there’s an imbalance.

4602 That’s why we’re trying to narrow it and not widen the door in the way that you alluded to when you prompted the question, about the streamers perhaps proposing similar flexibility. We’re trying to avoid a situation where we leave sort of the back door open in that way. We’re recognizing that there is a structural imbalance that disproportionately reflects Black and racialized creators, and that’s why we’re trying to tailor the flexibility narrowly.

4603 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. So, I would like to leave some time for my colleagues here, so I’ll try to go fast. Maybe two more questions.

4604 You also encouraged the Commission to adopt an IP rights model with a Canadian IP threshold of over 50 percent. How does this approach differ from the current co‑venture model that exists at the moment?

4605 MR. CARRINGTON: Actually, would you like to address, this Shant? This is ‑‑

4606 MR. JOSHI: Yeah.

4607 MR. CARRINGTON:  ‑‑ your wheelhouse.

4608 MR. JOSHI: I am happy to, thank you. So, the co‑venture model, from my understanding, has been quite underutilized, primarily because it only grants a production access to the Canadian content license fee benefit. Right? So, like I mentioned, I had some projects ‑‑ Canadian projects ‑‑ that did not qualify as certifiable Canadian content and therefore, you know, we saw Crave license fees between 20,000 and 50,000, whereas a project that probably was of a lower quality but certified as Canadian content would get probably around triple or quadruple that amount.

4609 And so, there is definitely that benefit, but that’s the extent of that benefit; right? The project doesn’t certify for tax credits. It doesn’t certify for CMF. So, it’s a very limited scope. So, by putting it under the definition of Canadian content ‑‑ and obviously, this is still the CRTC ‑‑ you don’t dictate tax credits, you don’t dictate CMF in that kind of way ‑‑ ideally, we start setting precedent. I think that’s the goal ‑‑ that this sort of leads through, but yeah, that was the issue ‑‑ is the co‑venture model never sort of bled through to any of the other funding mechanisms, and so, my understanding is it was underutilized, yeah.

4610 MR. CARRINGTON: I can also just add that the co‑venture model, as I understand it, still requires that 75 percent expenditure threshold. So, the diversity factor that we’re ‑‑

4611 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes.

4612 MR. CARRINGTON:  ‑‑ proposing would bring that down to 60. It would also introduce more flexibility around lead performers, and potentially key creative talent, as well. So, distinct from the co‑venture model in those ways.

4613 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And maybe one last question for Ms. Lee.

4614 You mentioned in your intervention the danger of exploitation and harm in the context of internation production. Are there actions that the Commission can or should take to ensure that international co‑productions benefit creators from equity‑deserving groups without this exploitation and harm you referred to?

4615 MS. LEE: Yeah. I think what I was talking about that is just cultural appropriation, people who, from mainstream or dominant cultures going into ‑‑ you know, with their funding and their clout to take over a story that should belong within that community with that racialized person who the stories originate from. So that is just sort of something that we want to be very mindful of because there are often stories from ‑‑ you know, from different cultures have also been taken from a white lens perspective, and we always want to make sure that it’s authentically told and culturally appropriate.

4616 So those are the things that we mean by making sure that there’s not an exploitation of a story because economically we are a stronger country as opposed to some of these other countries that we want to, you know, tell their stories or help tell stories.

4617 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you. I have no more questions.

4618 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

4619 We do have a few more questions. I will turn things over to our colleague, Commissioner Naidoo.

4620 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. Thank you so much for being here today.

4621 My question is directed towards Racial Equality Screen Office. We heard ‑‑ we’ve heard throughout the last week or so that financial control and creative control often go hand in hand, so my question to you is, how do you reconcile the argument for a more flexible IP approach and also the need for Canadian creators to remain in control of their art?

4622 MS. LEE: Well, I think it’s very important because it’s not just the one project. What’s happening with IP nowadays is that it’s crossing many platforms, so you can have a show that is on television, but then it can go into a video game. So we are talking to many different platforms and businesses that are taking IP, but you don’t control it. You lose all those features and streams of income and, you know, there is an example. We had a speaker who had a show that, because they were new ‑‑ because they’re new to the business, the broadcaster made them partner and give up IP to their creation to a production company and then that has been licensed to over 100 countries now and they don’t actually get much of that revenue. So it’s really important that because of the historical under‑representation that a lot of the racialized creatives, when they go approach with their story, they’re often told to partner with an experienced production company and then they have to hand over all their IP and if it becomes successful, they don’t get all that, you know, future income.

4623 So that’s really important. That’s where financial control takes over where if you lose Ip control, you don’t get those future streams of income.

4624 So I guess in these situations, requirements and mandated targets are really necessary. So I would say, you know, the 35 percent and all the things that the Racial Equity Screen Office has proposed of mandated targets is really important.

4625 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for that. That’s my question.

4626 Thank you.

4627 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: I was waiting for the Chair to give me the floor, but she just hinted at me.

4628 Thank you. Thank you for being here. This is a most interesting panel.

4629 So my question is specifically for you, Mr. Joshi, and thank you for your intervention and providing very, very precise examples. We absolutely appreciate it. I certainly appreciate it.

4630 So my question is for you but, you know, anybody on the panel is ‑‑ please jump in if you’ve got views.

4631 So in its intervention, Blue Ant proposes that broadcasters could choose between, on the one hand, contributing to a fund or investing in Canadian content based on their business model reflecting some flexibility in the way they contribute to the system.

4632 So if the Commission were to consider this proposal, are there any safeguards or policy mechanisms beyond incentives and funds that you would recommend to ensure continued support for equity‑deserving groups?

4633 MR. JOSHI: I think definitely a mixed approach is always great. I prefer a model where you have each player, each ‑‑ yeah, player, basically contributing to funds and doing the expenditures.

4634 So the expenditures, it’s part of their business model. They’re looking to create a specific content for the audience that they’re catering to. There’s a lot of content that I’ve created and a lot of content that colleagues of mine have created amongst equity‑deserving communities where the market equation is not immediately apparent at the development stage or at the package stage, basically, right.

4635 Maybe you have a star attached. Maybe you have a full package, you’ve got a great script, you’ve got all the things that are ready to go, but the market, you know, just doesn’t have the appetite.

4636 I’m currently undergoing some financial troubles on a South African‑Canadian‑Irish coproduction about a trans trailblazer who lives in the 1980s during apartheid in Johannesburg. Brilliant story, financed by Telefilm, financed by SODEC, financed by Screen Ireland. We have a small licence from Out TV, a small MG from a local distributor. Our South African producer lost out on the Amazon licence because they pitched the project right after Trump’s election and Bezos just wasn’t too happy about the idea of supporting trans actors and said that he’d rather spend $50 million on a Melania documentary, so you know, it’s ‑‑ the market is where the market goes.

4637 The funds are there to support Canadian creators and to help them tell their stories, and so I do think a mixed approach is always beneficial because there’s a lot of projects that they may not see its apparent value until after it’s finished and then it goes onto the market.

4638 A movie like Emilia Perez went to Cannes and was bought by Netflix for a big sum of money and became ‑‑ had some controversy, but became a bit of a hit. But that was not something that the market could tolerate at a development stage, so there’s definitely benefits of that.

4639 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: How do you offset that? I mean, I hear you when you say the market is the market, but for some particular types of content which we value as a society ‑‑ I’m thinking of kids’ programming ‑‑ just letting the market decide is perhaps not enough. And the CRTC also has some pretty strong public policy objectives embedded in the legislation which forces us to look at these types of programming and find ways beyond the market.

4640 So any views on that?

4641 MR. JOSHI: No, I’m completely in support of that mixed approach, right. So you want to ‑‑ like I said, you want those projects that appeal to the market, but you also want to make sure you’re hitting your policy objectives, right. That’s the point of regulation, is to make sure, you know, our kids aren’t staring at a vertical screen for three hours in a day and really eating a lot of garbage, basically. There’s really a lot of junk food, you know, on that social media content, TikTok and everything. And so if you have content where it’s, you know ‑‑ especially with kids, we’re hitting a huge deficit.

4642 I don’t have kids yet, but I’m scared when I do have one about the content that they’re watching. I think when I was a kid, you know, watching content that was on CBC Kids and licensed through ABC Kids, PBS Kids. Public broadcasters were always creating great kids’ content. Sesame Street is currently, you know, under threat by Donald Trump. So of course I do believe that policy objectives should play a priority role for the regulator.

4643 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: And what’s the most appropriate way to ensure that that type of content continues to be produced?

4644 MR. JOSHI: Yeah. So you have the ‑‑ and that’s why I sort of mentioned the genre initiatives in my intervention.

4645 I mean, I know PNI for sure speaks to that, speaks to those genre considerations, but you know, PNI is one word and it applies to a variety of genres. I think, actually, potentially the regulator should be a bit more prescriptive of each genre and this is how much kids’ content we need to be seeing, you know, out of the broadcasters. And so that’s sort of where I think ‑‑ I’m actually advocating for more of an expansion of PNI beyond sort of like this is a qualifier for PNI. Rather, this is a qualifier for kids’ content and we need this much kids’ content, you know, on our screens.

4646 So did I answer your question, or...?

4647 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Thank you so much.

4648 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much and thank you for all of the responses.

4649 Perhaps just before we go over for any closing remarks, I could just deal with a procedural question with the Racial Equity Screen Office.

4650 You did introduce a preview of some survey results in your introductory remarks and it sounds like that survey is not yet published. Is that something that you would like to make a request to add that evidence to the record?

4651 MS. LEE: Yes. We’re just finishing up the report so it probably will not be ready till early July or mid‑July, so if it’s possible we would like to have the opportunity to submit that as well.

4652 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So what I would suggest is to make a request. We will talk about the close of record at the end of the hearing, but I would suggest that you make a request and that we will take that under advisement and communicate a response back.

4653 So perhaps I could turn things back over to you for any concluding comments. Thank you.

4654 MR. CARRINGTON: Thank you.

4655 I began this presentation by noting the longstanding concern that, absent robust regulation, the Canadian film and television industry risks being overwhelmed by Hollywood. In closing, I reiterate that we must avoid a situation where, in the process of seeking to limit undue U.S. cultural incursions, we inadvertently constrain Canadian creators from global majority diasporas by unduly limiting their capacity to collaborate across borders.

4656 These consultations and the Commission’s ultimate decisions will shape the Canadian film and television industry for decades to come. As such, it is pertinent to note that Statistics Canada forecasts that racialized people could comprise well over 40 percent of the Canadian population by 2041.

4657 In light of current structural barriers that disproportionately impact creators of non‑European descent and following the President of the UK (sic) previously cited, we hope the Commission will introduce specific regulatory incentives to support creators from equity‑deserving communities.

4658 As Canada undertakes a broader process of looking beyond the U.S. to build an expanded framework of global trade and cultural exchange, creators from black and racialized communities in particular must be empowered to reflect the unique diversity of the Canadian experience to the worldwide market that awaits.

4659 Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

4660 MR. JOSHI: Barabara, do you want to go ahead?

4661 MS. LEE: In conclusion, the CRTC Cancon hearings present a critical opportunity to recognize and address the systemic barriers that racialized creatives continue to face in Canada’s screen industries. As the definitions and funding frameworks for Canadian content are being reconsidered, it is essential that racialized voices are not only heard, but meaningfully included in shaping the future of storytelling in this country.

4662 Over the last few years, RESO has travelled to the Asia Pacific regions, particularly South Korea, who’s had great success in exporting their stories and culture to the world. We think that Canada has similar opportunities in this moment and Canadians are seen as good partners, but there needs to be equitable access to funding, investment, development and distribution opportunities for black and racialized creators. (Off microphone / sans microphone) globally competitive Canadian projects.

4663 I’d also like to say that this is a generational opportunity to make the changes that would include all Canadians to be seen and heard and for the world to see our rich tapestry of storytelling.

4664 Thank you.

4665 MR. JOSHI: And just to reference some of the things that have been spoken earlier amongst these hearings, I’m an advocate for maximalism, but in a different way. I advocate for more projects that may have less Canadian‑ness in them rather than less projects with more Canadian‑ness in them. I think there are a lot of things that are Canadian about us beyond where we live.

4666 I believe we have an opportunity here to create more content, more opportunities, more experience, scaling up Canadian talent, building each other up, training each other up, levelling up emerging Canadian talent to reach a robust and sustainable industry.

4667 To speak to Vice‑Chair Théberge’s questions, I think we’d like ‑‑ I’d like to see the CRTC, you know, publish a wide spectrum of policy objectives that become qualifiers for opportunities to potentially create more flexibility as long as they meet those policy objectives.

4668 And as we move into a more digital environment, I want to see our Canadians, you know, take on the world, so that’s my closing remarks.

4669 THE SECRETARY: Thank you very much.

4670 We will now take a break and be back at 2:50.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 14 h 38

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 48

4671 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We are ready to start.

4672 Please introduce yourself for the record and you may begin.

Présentation

4673 MR. McCULLOUGH: Hello, friends. My name is J.J. McCullough, and thank you for inviting me back. I am a full‑time professional YouTuber based in Vancouver, with nearly a million subscribers, and I am a longtime critic of the Online Streaming Act.

4674 While I can’t claim to speak for the vast and diverse community of professional Canadian YouTubers, I do think that it is a pretty broadly shared conclusion within my community that the Online Streaming Act from our perspective is bit of a solution in search of a problem and, in that sense, is worrying primarily because it is such a potentially destabilizing force to such a large and important and fast‑growing sector of Canada’s cultural economy.

4675 When I last spoke to you guys nearly a year and a half ago, I mentioned how there were over 1,000 Canadians running YouTube channels with over 100,000 subscribers. Today, according to the website Social Blade, that number is over 5,000. There will soon be more Canadians working as full‑time YouTubers than Canadians working for radio stations.

4676 If we include the number of Canadians employed by professional YouTubers, then even the most conservative estimates would easily have the Canadian YouTuber economy encompassing over 10,000 Canadian media jobs.

4677 I want to emphasize that this success has occurred in spite of an absence of any government subsidies or government regulation mandating the promotion or discoverability of Canadian content on YouTube.

4678 In my four years as a leading critic of Bills C‑10 and Bill C‑11, I have had countless conversations with other Canadian YouTubers. And by far, their biggest worry has been that, in seeking to honour the Act’s mandate, the CRTC will impose some convoluted definition of what makes a YouTube video or channel “Canadian enough” to be promoted by YouTube as part of their obligation of compliance with the Act and that this new promotional mechanism will upend all of our current understandings of how to be successful on the site.

4679 Even though I know that the Commission is under direction to not directly regulate the content of “social media creators”, which would include YouTubers, I continue to believe that this assurance is fundamentally incompatible with the Commission’s mandate to impose new “discoverability” requirements on platforms like YouTube to increase the visibility of certain forms of verified Canadian content.

4680 There continues to be ambiguity regarding at what point someone ceases to be an everyday user of a social media platform creating user‑generated content and, instead, becomes the sort of large scale corporate media enterprise that the Online Streaming Act exists to regulate.

4681 Based on an online hearing I attended a few months ago, I understand the CRTC is leaning against defining “Canadian content” on the basis of cultural symbols or themes, and this is certainly good news.

4682 I have had so many conversations with creators who are worrying about how they could make, say, their YouTube channel about video game easter eggs or reviews of power tools more ostentatiously Canadian. If there’s one thing I can say with complete confidence, it is that no one in my community wants the success of their content to be reliant on passing any sort of government defined cultural test.

4683 But that said, I believe current proposals to define the Canadian‑ness of online videos on the basis of content‑neutral characteristics would be enormously destabilizing in a whole other way.

4684 Proposals to award Canadian status on the basis of how many Canadians worked on a video or channel would have severe consequences for the many successful Canadian YouTubers who make use of international editors, animators, script writers, researchers or other assistants to produce their content.

4685 To be clear, the technology does exist to allow YouTubers to self‑certify this sort of information. YouTube already asks us to self‑audit every single video we upload according to a whole bunch of metrics, including whether the video is intended for children or not and whether it contains a whole host of “controversial subject matter” like nudity or violence and even the types of nudity of violence.

4686 I won’t disingenuously claim that it would be impossible for YouTube to introduce a system that asks professional YouTubers to verify the number of Canadians who made each video. Such a system would, however, be incredibly damaging.

4687 Making videos is a heavily globalized industry these days in which creators rarely feel the need to restrain their hiring decisions to people within their own neighborhoods. The goal is finding the best person who is most qualified to do the work that is required.

4688 In my case, I am based in Vancouver. I have one editor who lives in Ottawa and another one living in Mexico. That sort of thing is very common, a Canadian based YouTuber who relies on remote help from people living in a diverse array of global cities. The other day I had a conversation with a very large YouTuber, much larger than me, and he is based in Toronto and he said that he had 10 editors working for him and only one of them was Canadian.

4689 Making the nationality of a YouTuber’s staff a variable affecting the degree that their videos are boosted or not would be an incredibly punitive, divisive move with the potential to cause a severe loss of revenue for channels whose staff is suddenly declared too international to deserve promotion.

4690 YouTube videos are likewise not produced using any sort of consistent staffing system. Different channels will have different amounts and types of employees, and many of these jobs will not be analogous to the sorts of positions that the CRTC’s points system was designed to accommodate. YouTube videos are hard to analogize to TV shows or movies just because their complexity varies so much based on the genre of content and specific production values.

4691 For example, it would be impossible to make a cooking show for television without employing an audio‑visual director and a picture editor in addition to the onscreen talent. In the context of a smaller YouTube channel, however, it would be very common for the onscreen talent to also be her own audio‑visual director and picture editor.

4692 Generally speaking, YouTubers acquire more staff as they get bigger, which would mean that under a points system of staff‑based certification, larger channels that became successful prior to the Act would be punished if they had any pre‑existing international staff, while smaller channels would face unprecedented obstacles in attempting to grow since they would be the first generation of channels required to exclusively hire Canadian staff in order to be favoured by CRTC mandates.

4693 This is what I mean when I say that so many Canadian YouTubers regard the Online Streaming Act as a solution in search of a problem. Since Canadian content is already extremely popular on YouTube, mandating the promotion of some new, more esoterically defined flavour of Canadian content will just bring disorder and uncertainty to a status quo that is already functioning very well for what is almost certainly the fastest‑growing community of Canadian media creators across the country.

4694 Thank you.

4695 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for your intervention. Thank you for being here with us today.

4696 We appreciate you coming back because you obviously offer an interesting perspective of YouTubers, so thank you.

4697 I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott to start with the questions.

4698 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much.

4699 So I’ll start with some of the preoccupations that you raised in your introductory remarks.

4700 So I think I heard pretty clearly that the point system doesn’t fit YouTube creation and, by extension, discoverability requirements pertaining to Cancon also wouldn’t fit. But when you look at the language in the legislation, the language in the Policy Direction and what we’ve laid out in terms of preliminary determinations in our Notice of Consultation, is there any reassurance there or is the YouTube community still concerned that this is going to bleed into direct application to what you do?

4701 MR. McCULLOUGH: Yeah, I think there still is a lot of concern. And I know that this has been a sort of like ongoing sort of dialogue where the CRTC attempts to sort of alleviate the concerns of people like me, but then those concerns sort of continue. And I suppose sort of the root problem is, you know, YouTube is ultimately a streaming platform, right.

4702 We’re talking about the Online Streaming Act. We are talking ‑‑ you know, even though there hasn’t been that much talk about the internet this afternoon, ultimately, that is why the Online Streaming Act was passed, was to sort of bring sort of CRTC jurisdiction over this new sort of realm of media distribution in this country, which not only includes platforms, you know, like Netflix and Disney Plus, but also platforms like YouTube.

4703 So if YouTube as an entity, YouTube as a sort of corporate entity ‑‑ if YouTube is going to be compliant with the mandates of the Act in terms of discoverability and the promotion of Canadian content, then at some point YouTube’s compliance with that Act will trickle down to individual YouTubers, individual YouTube channels and, thus, individual YouTube videos.

4704 And I just kind of feel like that it’s sort of always been confusing to me personally, and I think other YouTubers as well, is that, you know, the CRTC often tries to alleviate those concerns by sort of saying that YouTube is like a social media platform and social media platforms are not under the jurisdiction of the Act. We’re not interested in regulating, you know, user‑generated content and that sort of thing. But it seems to me that that’s a big sort of contradiction because like I know that the CRTC is not going to just let YouTube get away with anything, right. YouTube has to be sort of compliant with the Act and thus compliant with their obligations to promote, you know, Canadian content in that way and so that’s just, I think, fundamentally the issue that we’re trying to get some closure on here, is will YouTube, YouTube the platform, how will their mandated sort of compliance with the Act ultimately trickle down to affect the ability of people like me and other YouTubers to be successful on the platform that we thought we understood in terms of how videos get seen or not seen, how they get boosted or suppressed.

4705 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks.

4706 And I’m going to dig into this from a few different angles.

4707 MR. McCULLOUGH: Yeah.

4708 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So if audiences continue to migrate from traditional broadcasts to more digital first, then if Canadian creators continue to punch above their weight in that segment, is there an argument to be made that the regulatory machinery around broadcasting in total can be kind of gradually phased out or toned down?

4709 MR. McCULLOUGH: Yeah, I mean I personally feel that way. I mean, a lot of people don’t feel that way. I mean, I think that what we’ve seen this afternoon is that you do have a lot of people that are still working in, you know, traditional media. They’re working in television. They’re working in motion pictures and, you know, and things like that. And obviously, these are still large industries by any sense.

4710 I do wonder to the degree to which there will come a time in the future in which people will just not consume or will be less interested in media that is produced through sort of traditional means of those sorts, right, through traditional, you know, sort of film production companies and traditional television networks and stations and all this kind of stuff, and that those will all sort of decline, and then what you’re sort of seeing now is that these YouTube channels, YouTube creators who are, like I said, are becoming this increasingly like large part of the Canadian sort of cultural economy, that they will eventually just kind of like displace the sort of currently existing, you know, film production houses and television channels and so forth.

4711 And then so sort of like what you’re seeing today is you’re seeing a bunch of YouTube channels that are in some ways kind of like the embryos of what will be sort of the great media titans of the future. And I think that something that the CRTC kind of has to think about is to what degree are you guys aware of that sort of future. Because with the Online Streaming Act, you know, in theory, this is all supposed to be about sort of planning for the future, thinking about the future of Canadian media so we don’t have to, you know, go through this every five years or something; right?

4712 But I worry that the CRTC and in hearings like this we’re instead kind of just getting sidetracked where it all just becomes a conversation about sort of subsidies and sort of keeping afloat, you know, film production companies and television channels and sort of old media enterprises that are, you know, suffering as, you know, new media rises. But there’s not really an engagement with the kind of new media and then sort of the new forms of sort of media entrepreneurship that things like YouTube and YouTube channels represent.

4713 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So is part of your thesis, then, that ‑‑ because there are two aspects of what we do, two broad aspects. There’s the cultural aspect and the economic aspect. So is part of your thesis that Canadian culture remains alive and well with a bright future, independent of whether or not Canadian broadcasting as we traditionally speak about it remains strong and healthy?

4714 MR. McCULLOUGH: Yeah, and but you know at some point ‑‑

4715 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: And sorry, part two, sorry, does that same logic apply to kind of the economic basis? Like is the economic growth on the YouTube side going to fully replace whatever economic value might be lost on the traditional broadcasting side?

4716 MR. McCULLOUGH: I would be inclined, in terms of the second part, I would be inclined to say yes. And actually, that’s sort of like a thought that’s been going through my mind when I hear some of the folks that were speaking to you guys this afternoon. You know, you can have this kind of idea where it’s like, you know, sort of old media is dying or is suffering in some ways, and then sort of like there’s one path in which in you can kind of like subsidize it and sort of keep it afloat that way. And it’s essentially like a kind of job creation or sort of job sort of sustainability kind of initiative. Or you can kind of have the sort of the mind set where, you know, some industries die, and then the people that work in those industries logically could migrate elsewhere.

4717 You know, I used to work in television. I actually have an interesting sort of backstory of this; right? So I used to work for if you guys remember the dearly departed Sun News Network, ill‑fated. You know, it was not a viable television enterprise by any stretch, and it failed. It abruptly just shut down one day, and then I was out of a job. I worked for the station. I was an on‑air TV commentator. One day, I was just informed like at 3 a.m., in the middle of the night, you know, the TV station is shutting down forever. You know, we’re changing the locks, so make sure your office is empty by noon tomorrow.

4718 And then I took that as a sign that, you know, maybe I should think about getting a job in some other enterprise. And so I bought a little camera at the Best Buy and I started my own YouTube channel. And I started making videos. And this year I’m going to celebrate 10 years doing it and a million subscribers.

4719 So you know, I don’t want to hold myself up as some great, you know, role model, but I think that as old media sort of fades, a lot of people or at least a certain segment of Canadians are having the sense that they want to move to these new media enterprises. And stories like mine are very common in YouTube where people have left old media, they’ve left TV, you know, they’ve left radio, they’ve even left film. And instead, they’re making their film projects; they’re making their movies, their full‑length motion pictures; they’re making their aspirations of the kind of TV show that they aspire to make on YouTube. They are making the radio show that they once aspired to make at a radio station on YouTube or on some of the other platforms that I’m less familiar with, you know, Spotify or TikTok or Instagram or, you know, some of these sorts of things.

4720 And then the first part of your question, you know, sort of just I suppose asking a bit about sort of the cultural mandate, you know, this is a philosophical conversation as far as I’m concerned. You know, personally, I’m more of a cultural sort of descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist, so I tend to think that, you know, Canadian culture is what Canadians do. Right? I look at what Canadians are consuming, what Canadians watch, what Canadians listen to, and that to me is Canadian culture.

4721 So I personally am less interested in these sort of prescriptivist ideas where, you know, we try to come up with a workable definition of what it means to be Canadian, what sort of defines sort of the Canadian way. And like I said in my opening statement, I give the CRTC credit because it seems like you guys are less interested in those kind of cultural prescriptivist sort of definitions of what Canadian content does or doesn’t entail.

4722 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks for that. So you have spoken a bit about some of the direct concerns, so concerns that you have about what we might do directly to the YouTuber community, to borrow the term. What about some of the indirect implications of what we might do? Like if we take action that leads to support, financial support for traditional broadcast, does that indirectly have a negative impact on what you do? Or are these really two like kind of parallel, non‑competitive streams that don’t have that type of intersection?

4723 MR. McCULLOUGH: Yeah, I mean, on the economic side, I would probably say that, yeah, there’s not I think a sort of sense of tension, really. There’s maybe a sort of sense of fairness, although maybe that is going away too, because from what I understand, YouTube channels can now sort of tap into a number of the subsidies that traditionally go to television and film and all of that.

4724 So I don’t really sort of think that there is a kind of scramble for resources in that way, where one group is benefitting at the expense of another, in large part because, like I said in my opening statement, YouTubers just generally are not tapping into those streams of revenue. Maybe they will in the future now that there’s more opportunities available, but not currently right now. So in that sense, the sort of the subsidy side of things feels like a very discrete and distinct kind of conversation from what ‑‑ that YouTubers are having amongst themselves.

4725 The thing where the interests collide I think mostly happens in terms of the discoverability mandates. And that’s what I was trying to get at in my opening statement; right? Like the idea that YouTube will have to be compliant, from my understanding ‑‑ and correct me if I’m wrong ‑‑ is that YouTube will in some form have to be compliant with some form of CRTC mandate in terms of discoverability of Canadian content, promotion of Canadian content as the Act mandates.

4726 That, then, causes a bit of a conflict because then I think there is a thinking that, you know, if YouTube was ‑‑ you know, not to be flooded, but you know, sort of YouTubers ‑‑ that basically people from old media will be able to make content for YouTube because they sort of understand the CRTC’s system very well. They’ll be able to make content that they’ll be able to upload on YouTube that will check all of the boxes, so to speak, of Canadian content certification. And then YouTube will then promote that type of content above sort of content of the sort that people that are less sort of fluent in CRTC regulations.

4727 And then so you’ll see this kind of like weird two‑tier system in YouTube where some content will float to the top of the sort of discoverability algorithm because it will be compliant with sort of Canadian content regulations and thus promoted on the basis that YouTube, as a sort of large streaming platform, will be obligated to promote, you know, Canadian content. So I think ‑‑ and then that could have all sorts of consequences for currently successful Canadian YouTubers or upcoming Canadian YouTubers.

4728 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I am going to make my last question a two‑parter.

4729 MR. McCULLOUGH: Okay.

4730 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: That’s how you cheat as a Commissioner ‑‑

4731 MR. McCULLOUGH: Yeah, yeah, yeah. These are great questions, so I appreciate it.

4732 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: So we were chatting with OpenMedia earlier today. And they made the case that digital first creators should have access to funding or that we should be apportioning funding for that type of creation, whether it’s through training opportunities, promotion ‑‑ there’s a number of ways it could be done. But actually, it’s interesting that I haven’t heard you making that case. So I’m wondering, how would you argue the case that the best thing the CRTC can do for digital firsts is just to leave you alone? Or if there is a need for us or a desire or an opportunity for us to direct investments your way, what would be an effective machinery for doing so?

4733 MR. McCULLOUGH: Well, I personally do not have any interest in subsidies. I’m not a big fan of it just at an individual level for my own personal reasons.

4734 My understanding is that YouTubers can qualify for subsidies as it is now, that there are sort of funding streams that are available to them. Whether or not the CRTC wanted to make like a more targeted sort of funding stream of subsidies for YouTubers specifically or for social media content creators or ‑‑ all these terms are very imprecise, but you know what I mean, somebody who’s sort of in this kind of space. You know, that’s I guess a conversation that you guys could have, and maybe there’s other people that will take the pro position.

4735 I mean, my inclination is that YouTubers are doing fine without any sort of economic assistance, because YouTube, in contrast to film or television or radio or whatever, is clearly the medium that’s on the rise. Like there’s no shortage of money. There’s no shortage of people that are making enormous success on this platform. So my inclination just at a personal level is to not subsidize industries that are growing and successful, but rather, you know, if there are to be subsidies, they’re for those who are struggling in a difficult economic environment.

4736 I forget what the second part you asked was.

4737 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yeah, I think you really addressed both. The second part was if there were to be support directed, what would be an effective formula for doing that ‑‑

4738 MR. McCULLOUGH: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And again, like, my point is just that, you know, if the CRTC is in the business or if any sort of government agency is in the business of helping people in the Canadian media space, it should be those who are struggling, not those who are thriving.

4739 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Great. Thanks very much, Mr. McCullough. I’ll stop there.

4740 MR. McCULLOUGH: Thank you.

4741 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. We will go over to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

4742 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you, and thank you for being here. I was trying to formulate a question that makes sense because this conversation is largely theoretical. I mean, you know, we are talking about things that may happen or may not happen eventually, at least, that’s what I’m getting from the conversation, and correct me if I’m wrong.

4743 But I think someone could argue that the role of the CRTC is also to accompany change. You know, you talked about the old media, the new media, the consumers turning their backs away from the old media, consuming more and more the new media.

4744 And listening to you, I was reminded of some of the interventions that we had today and ‑‑ not today, but for the past week on kids’ programming; right? And there’s a clear trend that Canadian kids are consuming content less and less on traditional old media and more and more on new media. One could also argue that it is a segment of the population that is more vulnerable, more susceptible. And as a government or even as a society, we want to make sure that these kids have access to content that is not necessarily educational, although it’s part of it, but that contribute to entertaining them but also making them good citizens; right?

4745 So as we witness that these kids are moving to social media, YouTube is an example, is there a role for the CRTC to make sure that they continue to have access to certain types of content, they can find certain types content on the new media that cater to these broader social policies, public policy objectives? I apologize if my question isn’t clear, but again ‑‑

4746 MR. McCULLOUGH: It is.

4747 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ I’m trying to get your sense, as somebody from within the YouTuber community, whether they see a role for the CRTC for those specific public policy objectives.

4748 MR. McCULLOUGH: No, it’s an interesting question. I mean, I suppose one thing I can say is that the most successful Canadian YouTube channel of all time is a kids’ channel. A very talented woman who runs the channel ‑‑ I don’t know her last name. Her first name is Morgan, very big studio in Toronto. But she’s also been a very persistent critic of the Online Streaming Act. I’ve met her a number of times.

4749 The thing is that online kids’ content is extraordinarily successful on YouTube, but YouTube has created their own sort of guardrails around it. YouTube has given this a great deal of thought. And you know, this is I suppose a conversation that’s probably better to have with YouTube themselves. But there are a lot of guardrails in place to ensure that when children are using YouTube, they see content that is appropriate for them.

4750 I mentioned actually in my opening statement that every single time you upload a video to YouTube, you have to check a little box that says “Is this for children? Yes/No.” If you say it is for children, then all sorts of sort of things sort of take effect. You know, the advertising is blocked, because we don’t want kids to be seeing advertising. You know, those kind of videos go into a feed that can only be seen ‑‑ well, not only be seen ‑‑ but can be seen by children at the expense of everything else on YouTube, because we want children to have a kind of curated feed that only serves them appropriate content and inappropriate content.

4751 You know, it’s not a perfect system, but this is a system ‑‑ I guess the point I’m trying to make is that this is a system that has arisen independent of any sort of government oversight. I mean, I think there’s some light government oversight of it in America that has resulted in some of these sort of checks and balances in place. But you know, certainly that system exists I think primarily because YouTube is sensitive to the needs of its audience. A lot of parents want to use YouTube. A lot of parents want to have sort of peace of mind knowing that when their kids are using YouTube, they’re not being subjected to inappropriate material and all of that.

4752 So you know, I do think that some of these things are self‑correcting. Some of these things will just sort of naturally sort of unfold in a certain way just due to general sort of market incentives and don’t necessarily require government oversight. But again, this is a very rich topic, and I’m not a super expert in it. But yeah, it’s worth looking into more, I would say.

4753 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Yes, I agree, because when you talk about guardrails, you know, it’s guardrails to make sure that it’s age‑appropriate, et cetera, but it’s not guardrails to make sure that, you know, things are presented from a Canadian perspective. So that’s what I was trying to get at when I was talking about social policy public objectives. I mean, one of the things government is struggling with is ‑‑ not struggling with, but is concerned about is how do we create good citizens, good Canadian citizens; right? And what we’ve heard from intervenors is that kids’ programming is one piece of the puzzle. So that’s why I was trying to tease some insights from you on that particular ‑‑

4754 MR. McCULLOUGH: I can just, if I may say just briefly, like my channel, like what I make on YouTube is primarily or at least in large part sort of Canadian civics‑type stuff. So like I’ve actually made several videos about the CRTC itself. I’ve made videos about sort of the whole process through which the Online Streaming Act has become a law. You know, I was at the Senate, the House of Commons, you know. I am the biggest Canadian sort of civics education channel on YouTube, and I have done this independent of any sort of CRTC mandates or any other sort of government mandates or subsidies to do what I do. I do it because I love educating people about this country. I love educating young people about this country. And I’ve made a pretty good living doing it, so you can take that for what you will.

4755 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. Maybe before we turn things back over to you for concluding comments, perhaps I could just ask, you had mentioned working with an editor in Mexico. You said you talked to a Toronto YouTuber who has 10 editors, only one is Canadian. Can you just talk to us about how collaborating with international partners or talent benefits your content?

4756 MR. McCULLOUGH: I mean, I don’t think there is any sort of big story here. It’s basically just you work with people that are able to do the kind of work that you need to get done. You know, you know how it is, relationships online, you know, they sort of unfold in organic ways. You know, people contact me and they say, Hey, do you need any work done? I’m a great animator. Look at this portfolio of work I can do. You know, sends me a message on Instagram or Twitter or whatever. And then I look at it and it’s like, Yeah, this seems great. Sure, you’re hired. Right? It’s often as simple as that.

4757 You know, people of my generation, people younger than me, they just live lives online, and so the sort of connections that they make that are the sort of connections that result in jobs are occurring online. And they’re just based on just a kind of objective assessment as to whether or not this person, who you may never meet in person, can do the kind of work that needs to be done.

4758 And this is what I mean when I sort of say that the world of making online content, of making YouTube videos and making other forms of online content is just such ‑‑ it’s just so deeply part of this kind of globalized interconnected, you know, Internet reality that we all inhabit. And that’s why I think that, you know, when we’re talking about something like the point system, it just feels very dated and very foreign to the experience of sort of younger creators who only think of themselves as being sort of citizens of this kind of like online world that are not super fixated on the nationalities of the people that are helping them, you know, adjust the sound levels or whatever else.

4759 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. So we will turn things back over to you for final remarks.

4760 MR. McCULLOUGH: Yeah, sure. So all I could say is that I just think that, you know, the Commission needs to put a little bit more effort into understanding the growing sector of Canadian media that provides a living to people like me and the people who make their living working for people like me. You know, independent online audiovisual content creators are, quite frankly, a much larger, more popular, and increasingly more culturally significant sector of the Canadian cultural economy than many other groups who are perhaps better organized and more experienced at navigating Canadian regulatory agencies.

4761 But to be fair, you know, people like me also have to put more effort into understanding the workings of agencies like the CRTC. You know, I’m sure you saw that my submission was not much compared to I’m sure some of the submissions that you guys got today. But that’s just because, you know, I just don’t know this world as well. And certainly, when I’m speaking to you guys and I’m sort of sitting in the audience here, I’m just very aware of like the huge gap of knowledge between how fluent I am ‑‑ and I’m already like in the upper, upper, upper elite tier of YouTubers in terms of my fluency with this, and yet I’m like way down here compared to just all these other folks that have been talking to you guys today. So like that’s a problem for me and for my community, but I think it is also a problem for the CRTC at some level that you have this like large group of sort of entrepreneurial Canadian media content creators who are just kind of like really at the margins of these sorts of conversations.

4762 I think it is critical that the Commission resist treating independent Canadian content creators as a marginal presence just because we are worse organized than smaller groups that may punch above their weight in contexts like these. YouTubers are not just people who use a social media platform and incidentally make money from it. We are a large industry that works with large budgets, large productions, and attract large audiences and provide thousands of high‑quality media jobs across the country.

4763 Given the significance of the Canadian YouTuber sector, it remains essential that efforts to bring Canadian media regulation into the 21st century do not wind up creating more ambiguity and confusion due to dated understandings and dated definitions and unreliable testimony regarding how audiovisual media is actually made, broadcast, and consumed by Canadians in the 2020s and beyond. So. Thank you.

4764 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for coming back for round two. We really appreciate it, and safe travels if you have another long flight ahead of you. Thank you.

4765 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I will now ask Digital First Canada to come to the presentation table. When you are ready, please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

4766 MR. BENZIE: Following J.J. is never a good idea, but here we go.

4767 Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Commissioners, and staff of the Commission. Thank you for putting up with all my asks for directions and clarifications. I appreciate it.

4768 My name is Scott Benzie. I am here today on behalf of Digital First Canada or DFC. DFC is a not‑for‑profit organization advocating on behalf of independent digital audio and audiovisual creators in Canada. We are pleased to appear before you today as part of the proceeding on the definition of Canadian content to provide our perspective of digital first creators, often referred to as social media creators under the regulations.

4769 I would like to share a quick story first that will highlight why these consultations are so important to us. During the hearings on C‑11, I was a witness talking about the success of digital creators and how the bill, if applied as written, could have negative effects on our community. An MP challenged me and kept repeating, “Do you not support more Canadians getting more air time?” I pushed back on him and asked for clarification, and he just repeated, “Mr. Benzie, do you not support Canadians getting more air time?” I pushed back again. He said, “I just need an answer: do you not support Canadian artists getting more air time?” With hesitation, I replied, “Of course I do.”

4770 But the truth is not so simple. “Canadian” has a very specific definition, and one that not all Canadians fall under, which is why these hearings and definitions are so important. And I appreciate that.

4771 First, we recognize that the ministerial direction instructs the Commission not to impose regulatory requirements on platforms regarding the content of social media creators, which should remove digital first creator content from the scope of the regulations. However, it is still unclear what a ‘social media creator’ is, or what a ‘social media service’ is exactly. So, we may find ourselves falling outside of those definitions. Also, as a directive, it could be subject to change, so we felt it prudent to be here to express our views.

4772 DFC shares the Commission’s stated goals of facilitating flexible Canadian programming, fostering a sustainable Canadian broadcasting system which reflects Canada’s diversity and where creators can promote, export and profit from their work. In fact, Canada’s digital first creators are already successfully achieving these very objectives. They create a wide variety of world‑class content, build global audiences on online platforms, and successfully monetize their work, both on platform and off.

4773 Crucially, the digital creator ecosystem in Canada is incredibly diverse, with many creators from historically marginalized backgrounds finding success by bypassing conventional gatekeepers due to relatively low barriers to entry. Accordingly, our principal concern is with the potential for existing rules to be applied to digital first creators and impede their success.

4774 For instance, both the existing and the proposed methods for determining ‘Canadian programs’ are clearly designed for large‑scale television and film productions. They are ill‑suited for digital first creators. Digital first creators are typically small and independent. They most commonly work alone or with a very small team to develop, shoot, post, and promote a relatively high volume of shorter‑form audio or audio‑visual content. Production is typically fast and fluid, with collaboration occurring across various platforms, often with teams that are globally distributed. There is frequently no clear delineation of what work is done in what country, where, and when.

4775 Given this dynamic, fast‑paced, and global production environment, a definition modelled on large‑scale, on‑location television production presents significant challenges. Due to small teams, a single team member may occupy multiple creative roles, complicating the point system. If a Canadian digital first creator collaborates with or contracts non‑Canadians for assistance, their content could potentially be entirely disqualified under the current or proposed system. And that’s without the added complication of creators who use AI to support their production workstreams, which further blurs the line in terms of creative roles. Hence, this formulation could have unintended and disproportionate impacts on digital first creators.

4776 Further, if ‘social media services’ were required to make Canadian programs discoverable using this definition, it would likely impose a significant administrative and legal burden on digital first creators. Platforms would need creators to certify Canadian roles for each upload, and likely assume some liability for errors. Given that many creators produce and distribute multiple videos a week in a fast‑paced environment, the likelihood of errors is high, subjecting digital first creators to potential liability and/or insurance costs.

4777 We also reiterate concerns that requiring mandatory elevation of Canadian programs in recommendation systems could have negative consequences. Recommendation systems are designed to connect users with relevant content regardless of geography or nationality. Interfering with these systems to artificially promote content based on factors not relevant to the user could negatively affect the viewer experience, leading to downvotes, negative reviews, or worse.

4778 I would like to thank you again for the opportunity to present our comments. We look forward to continuing this important discussion and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

4779 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to Digital First for being here with us today.

4780 I will turn things over to the Vice‑Chair. Thank you.

4781 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. This is proving to be a very interesting afternoon, so thank you for being here and telling us about your business, your industry, the challenges that you face. And I suspect that, like many other types of creators, you share similar challenges and aspirations in terms of developing audiences, making sure content is found. You are probably eager to get picked up by international platforms such as YouTube, just to be able to monetize your art.

4782 So, do social digital creators need regulatory support? And if so, what would it look like? The conversation on Canadian content is also a gateway to discuss access to funding, and so, what we’ve heard from J.J. just before you is, they seem to be doing fine monetizing their own work, and so, Canadian content regulations may not be relevant to that type of industry. So, is it relevant to your type of industry? And is there any type of regulatory support, guidance, that would actually help your industry? Or should we just get out of your way?

4783 MR. BENZIE: If it’s a binary, you know, I think the choice is ‘get out of the way’, but the truth is, Canadian digital creators online are a burning fire of culture, that are exported globally at a scale that we’ve never seen before.

4784 You know, J.J. had mentioned Morghan Fortier of Super Simple Songs. We’re talking about over eight billion views a year, globally. That number dwarfs almost all the content created in Canada if you put it together. There’s a fire burning, and it’s up to the Commission of whether or not they decide that they want to throw gasoline on that fire and help that content be made, but it would take a fundamental shift in how we look at funding creators for digital first creators.

4785 We fund creators today based on content. Right? There’s a piece of content that ticks certain boxes. That content, you know, goes through a system and goes through funders, and the content itself is funded. That doesn’t work in our model. I mean, for the vast majority of digital creators, you could fund up to 75 percent of a piece of their content, and that would equal, I don’t know, 32 bucks. Right? You can’t really compare the apples to apples.

4786 I think the CMF has done a really good job of filling a very small niche for the kind of creators that create these longer‑form, almost theatric stuff that fits into what the CMF does really well, but if the Commission decided that, you know, we want to throw gasoline on this fire, it’s more about empowering these creators to become companies themselves, and to help them ‑‑ you know, let’s get them accountants, get them lawyers, get them experts on platforms, or merch specialists ‑‑ help somebody give them an on‑the‑road tour, whatever it is. You have to look at these creators as entrepreneurial entities, not just one piece of content.

4787 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: So, how would the CRTC do that through regulation, though? Because what I’m hearing is, ‑‑

4788 MR. BENZIE: Yeah.

4789 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ support that typically comes through programs led by departments, whether it’s ISED or PCH, but in terms of creating a regulatory framework, ‑‑

4790 MR. BENZIE: Yeah.

4791 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ because I’m hearing what you’re saying. Your needs may be different than the needs from the other parts of the industry, but are still there, with their own challenges. So, what is the role of the CRTC here, and again, is it to just not do anything? Or is it to incentivize certain behaviours? Impose some requirements coming from the big players, to be able to cater to your challenges? I’m trying to figure out what you’re swim lane is, exactly.

4792 MR. BENZIE: Yes. SO, I think there is a world where, if, you know, the platforms that digital first creators create on, be it YouTube or TikTok, Snap ‑‑ there is more every day ‑‑ Twitch, if there is a world where they are contributing into the system, then I think the money from those platforms that digital creators create on need to go out into a system for digital first creators. And that system cannot exist in the current systems that we have.

4793 So, I mean, your question of, if regulation could help ‑‑ I mean, sure, it could. But that money would have to come from somewhere, and if that money is coming from the platforms where social media creators create, that money needs to go back into our ecosystem and not be funneled into an existing ecosystem. There is a real risk that, if YouTube or TikTok or Snap are required to pay into whatever system, and then you take that money and you build a traditional program ‑‑ we’ve seen this in some programs ‑‑ that traditional media has the ability to cannibalize digital creator programs, where the Bell Fund, for example ‑‑ we support YouTube channels, but it’s a Blue Ant YouTube channel, or it’s a Banger Films YouTube channel.

4794 Like, we really need to make sure that the money from these platforms goes into a system that individual, independent, entrepreneurial digital creators can take advantage of.

4795 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: But is it an all or nothing approach that you’re suggesting? Or can these things co‑exist?

4796 MR. BENZIE: Oh, no, I think they absolutely can co‑exist. I mean, ‑‑

4797 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Right.

4798 MR. BENZIE:  ‑‑ even if we talk about the mix between traditional media and digital first creators, you know, they all have the same goal of eyeballs. Right? Like, they all have the goal of finding their audience. They just do it in different ways and they do it in different platforms. If the goal of the CRTC is to ‑‑ you know, if this is an industry conversation and it’s the goal of the CRTC to support an industry, individual digital first creators probably don’t need to be in that system. If the goal is to pour gasoline on a fire that’s already burning, there are many ways that we can cut that apple or slice that pie that would really help entrepreneurial Canadians spread culture globally.

4799 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: You gave me a good segue when you started to talk about eyeballs. One of the things that we’re certainly concerned about is children’s eyeballs, and if you listen to previous presenters, we had many of them coming to us highlighting the difficulties and the challenges around the production, distribution of kids programming. I think the point of departure is you need to invest in those children’s eyeballs because these become the consumers of the future. Kids programming is also important in terms of sharing Canadian‑specific values, perspectives, et cetera, et cetera.

4800 So, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on that particular genre of programming, which has been presented to us as a genre that is particularly at risk, where the CRTC should be stepping in.

4801 MR. BENZIE: I would challenge the thesis that the genre is at risk. Off the top of my head, there are two great channels in Canada ‑‑ Super Simple Songs and Scratch Garden. There is a model ‑‑ you know, if the CRTC’s goal is to get good Canadian children’s content in front of Canadian kids, there is a model, because of where the eyeballs are, to do that online. If the consumption habits of kids are the way they are and the way they’re going to be for the foreseeable future, I think trying to create a system to draw their eyeballs away from where they already are is silly.

4802 I think we would be much better spent ‑‑ let’s invest some resources in helping that children’s content get found and discovered online the way it’s supposed to, not unnaturally, but let’s build the programming and put it where the kids are today, not try to fit, you know, an old model onto new eyeballs, for ‑‑

4803 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: What do you mean, ‑‑

4804 MR. BENZIE:  ‑‑ lack of a better term.

4805 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ ‘unnaturally’? Meaning requirements for discoverability and ‑‑

4806 MR. BENZIE: Yeah. So, ‑‑

4807 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ imposing ‑‑

4808 MR. BENZIE: Correct.

4809 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ stuff and requirements on online platforms? That’s what you mean?

4810 MR. BENZIE: So, I would mean specifically obligations on discoverability. That doesn’t help the content. There seems to be this misnomer that, you know, if we told TikTok to put 15 certified Canadians on the first five flips of your stream, that that’s somehow going to work, or that the next recommendation needs to be Canadian on YouTube, or somehow that’s not going to work. That’s not going to work.

4811 There is evidence and studies that that’s actually only going to hurt. So, you’re going to create all this content, unnaturally force it into a recommendation algorithm that’s not built for geography ‑‑ it’s built for interest ‑‑ and that content’s not going to be engaged with, it’s not going to be liked, it’s not going to be shared. That content then is going to fail and fall down a black hole and not be discovered at all.

4812 We’d be much better putting our resources into training the people who are creating this content to properly use the platforms as they are built today. I don’t see a world where you can mandate that the platforms effect some kind of discovery, and that’s going to be helpful for people.

4813 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: So, I don’t want to misrepresent what you just said, but ‑‑

4814 MR. BENZIE: Sure.

4815 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ is the responsibility for making sure that the content is discoverable on the content creator? Is that what you’re saying? By just understanding the ins and outs of the platforms and trying to game the algorithm? Is that what kind of you’re saying?

4816 MR. BENZIE: Yeah. On user‑generated platforms where the audience drives what they’re interested in, yes, I believe so.

4817 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: All right, thank you. Maybe just one last question. Could you discuss the use of AI in your industry, and how it’s impacting the creators you represent?

4818 MR. BENZIE: Sure. AI is an interesting one, and for the most part is a really, really, really handy tool for digital first creators. You know, I see AI as a get‑to‑beta‑faster. Right? So, you use AI to build your template of whatever that is. If you’re an animator, you can get to that beta template of your design much faster than you could before, and then it’s on you as the creator to iterate on top of what the AI has provided you as a baseline.

4819 But, you know, I think for the most part, I mean, some of these conversations around AI and content are funny. It’s already here. It’s already scraping our content. This already exists. We need to learn how to work within this new model and best maximize our creative energies around it. AI is never going to replace the creativity of human beings. It’s going to help us get there faster.

4820 Especially when you talk about independent creators who are one team, you know, it might have taken a creator, I don’t know, two weeks to write a script, historically. That script is now taking a week to get to beta, iterate on top of it, perfect it the way you like it, and then put it out. You know, creator tools are being launched every day around AI. And it’s even cool tools like you can beta test thumbnails on some platforms ‑‑ you know, the thumbnails ‑‑ the little images that you see when you  ‑‑ you know, you can beta test it and AI will go through and say, ‘Hey, this one performs the best out of these three.’ You know, it’s actually really functional, good tools that provide data to creators in a lot of cases.

4821 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: And any views on how this could be managed in the context of the Canadian content definition? Some intervenors have made the distinction between generative AI and AI‑assisted tools. Many intervenors have raised of course copyright issues around AI ‑‑ that a work that is AI‑generated should not be protected by copyright. So, ‑‑

4822 MR. BENZIE: Yeah.

4823 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ any views on whether and how the CRTC should consider and frame the definition considering the particularities of AI?

4824 MR. BENZIE: Yeah, so, I mean, I have two quick points. The first is, one thing the digital creators have had a problem with that, you know, maybe the mainstream or legacy media hasn’t had to deal with as long, is stolen content. It happens all the time where, you know, because it’s real easy and accessible to everybody, a digital creator’s content will get stolen and reuploaded under another profile. This was ubiquitous and everywhere.

4825 The platforms have actually done a really good job of putting ‑‑ for lack of a better term ‑‑ content idea in place, where digital creators now have the ability to see where their content is being used really quickly, and they have recourse for them to go and, one, claim the revenue on that content, or two, have it taken down.

4826 I forgot what my second point was, my first one was so good.

‑‑‑ Rires

4827 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: I am still on your second point.

4828 MR. BENZIE: You know, I just ‑‑ I think that digital creators and the platforms that we work on are innovating faster than legacy media, so, you know, I already know, like, YouTube, for example, is launching a whole bunch of AI protection programs where you get to protect your likeness and protect your work. Hopefully, those work really well. I think, you know, AI is kind of a beast in the machine at this point, where we don’t even really know what it’s going to look like three, four, years from now. A bit of a tough nut to crack.

4829 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much.

4830 MR. BENZIE: Of course.

4831 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. I will turn it over to Commissioner Paquette.

4832 MR. BENZIE: Sure.

4833 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Maybe just one question ‑‑ one precision, I would say. I feel that the frontier between what is digital first content, versus what we maybe call broadcast content, is getting thinner and thinner. Everyone is starting to play on the same field. As an example, the broadcasters often give the first window to their streaming platforms, and they are even prioritizing now their online services compared to their broadcast services.

4834 First of all, is it your impression that this separation that we make is getting thinner and thinner? And do you feel it’s a disadvantage for a digital media producer not to have a platform associated as it is the case for the broadcasters?

4835 MR. BENZIE: Yeah, the line is definitely getting blurred and small ‑‑ I mean, you know, the CBC does a wonderful job on their YouTube channels. There’s, you know, examples of Canadian broadcasters that use those UGC platforms really well for discovery, to drive them back to their content. I think CBC actually did a study relatively recently where, after releasing something on YouTube, it actually improved the viewer rate on Gem for, like, driving audiences back to their owned and operated platforms.

4836 I think, you know, when we talk about these social media platforms, not everybody is going to use them for the exact same thing. You know, sometimes you want to find where your audience is and tell them, ‘Hey, look at all this cool stuff over there,’ and pull them into going and watching your stuff on your owned and operated platforms.

4837 I will say this, and we tell digital creators this all time in consultations ‑‑ the challenge for digital creators is to own your audience. You have to find a way to own your audience that a lot of broadcasters kind of already do, because tomorrow your platform could be gone, for whatever reason. Right? And if you’ve put all your eggs into one basket and you don’t have your email list of subscribers, or you don’t have a Patreon, or you don’t have your own subscription model that a lot of digital creators are launching, you know, you’re at the behest of the platforms.

4838 So, I think, to your point, for digital creators, we’re seeing a move from not just being one platform‑specific type of creator. You know, J.J. frequently mentioned ‘YouTuber’ as a thing. I don’t really see them that way. I see people who create to become a media company, to become an entrepreneur, to own their audience and monetize that audience. It all comes down to monetizing eyeballs, at the end of the day, I think for everybody that was in front of you.

4839 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And do you feel at a disadvantage ‑‑ when you create content, your content has to compete against content from bigger media groups which already have their own platforms? Do you feel a ‑‑

4840 MR. BENZIE: No, I ‑‑

4841 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ disadvantage?

4842 MR. BENZIE:  ‑‑ don’t see them in competition, really. I mean, one of the luxuries for digital content creators ‑‑ and this was a frustration going through some of the hearings ‑‑ it’s about Canadian culture and identity being given to Canadians. Digital first creators don’t really work that way. We work towards a global audience. There are a lot of people on this planet that, you know, we can export our content to.

4843 And Canada, by population size, is such a small country. To focus on that and for that to be ‑‑ you know, outside of the few niche creators ‑‑ you know, for that to be your core market that you’re going after is a disservice to you. So, we don’t ‑‑ you know, the proverbial ‘we’ don’t see Bell Media as a competitor because we’re, you know, exporting around the globe ‑‑ in very small niches, by the way. You know, a broadcaster has the responsibility of having all kinds of content for all kinds of people.

4844 One of the beauties of digital first creators is, you can pick a niche ‑‑ there’s an audience for it. You know, they’re not all in Canada, but pick your obscure niche. If you went on YouTube right now and typed it in, there’s going to be a community of people there wanting that content.

4845 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you very much.

4846 MR. BENZIE: It’s no problem.

4847 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you for answering our questions, and with such granular examples as well ‑‑ the beta testing, the thumbnails, and driving audiences from YouTube to Gem.

4848 We would like to turn things back over to you for any concluding remarks.

4849 MR. BENZIE: Sure. I am actually going to ‑‑ I’ve been paying very close attention to these hearings, so we’re going to talk about barbecues again, Mr. Scott. I found that analogy kind of funny, as I was sitting there and wrestling with it, and I was like, well, what does our barbecue look like? And I reflected on it. You know, for these millions watching at home, the barbecue analogy is, how do you, as the CRTC, ensure that not everybody brings the same thing to a barbecue?

4850 In our world, there is literally a potato salad barbecue, where everybody brings potato salad to the barbecue, and everybody is really happy about that. Because there is also an all‑hot dog barbecue, and there is also an all‑broccoli barbecue, because you as the user and as the viewer ‑‑ you get to pick your favourite food and you get to go to that barbecue. And historically and every day ‑‑ you know, J.J. quoted the number ‑‑ that barbecue has potato salad from around the world ‑‑ every kind of potato salad you can think of. And the Canadian potato salad at that barbecue is being chosen more times than it’s not.

4851 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. I feel like we should give the Vice‑Chair an opportunity to reply.

‑‑‑ Rires

4852 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Maybe I will just highlight the power of analogies, partially as an explanation of why I like to introduce them early in the process. Thank you for picking up the baton.

4853 MR. BENZIE: No problem. Thank you. Thank you very much.

4854 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I will now ask Meridian Artists to come to the presentation table.

‑‑‑ Pause

4855 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

4856 When you are ready, please introduce yourself and you may begin.

Présentation

4857 MR. COCKBURN: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Commission staff, my name is Glenn Cockburn. I am the founder and President of Meridian Artists. I work with writers and directors on a day‑to‑day basis in the film and television industry.

4858 I’m new to this process and writing a five‑minute opening statement was very hard. I didn’t know if I was supposed to make an economic argument or a cultural argument. I didn’t know how to distill all my insights into a five‑minute thing, so I’ve chosen to prioritize one thing. But ideally, we’ll be talking about a number of things.

4859 What I do know is I feel overwhelmed by the weight of ensuring the Commission sees a clear path to the best hiring practices of a Canadian program. It is the weight of a community of artists built over decades on the shoulders of Canadian content point system who want to know if their life’s work is going to be overlooked by a new flexibility to hire foreigners or rewarded with stability and opportunity to thrive. Collectively, those artists are the talent pool.

4860 In any industry, we strive to protect, develop and monetize the nation’s raw materials. In media, the raw materials are talent.

4861 We can intellectualize the point system, discuss statistical analysis and debate percentages, but at the core we are discussing the livelihoods of the people in the nation’s talent pool and, unlike other natural resources, the biggest problem with maintaining a stable and sustainable talent pool is they can walk away.

4862 Today our talent pool is our reward for the success of the 10‑point system. It is larger, more passionate and has more craft and skill than in any other time in our history. It is a brilliant and diverse community that wants to create Canadian IP, tell new stories and introduce new characters.

4863 If the new criteria for Canadian programs increases flexibility for foreign hires, the domestic talent pool will deteriorate. Some will leave the country and build new careers in Los Angeles, others will simply leave the industry. Some will leave willingly, but most will have no choice but to pursue employment elsewhere. The talent pool will be eroded and demoralized.

4864 Culturally, to ensure Canada has a voice, you need to secure the talent pool. Economically, if you want to generate IP and build media companies, you need to secure the talent pool.

4865 In my perfect modernized definition of a Canadian program, the eight positions currently in the 10‑point system would be guaranteed to Canadians. I understand that is likely not going to happen, but I wanted to say it out loud and on the record because I believe that that is the right choice.

4866 However, acknowledging that you have many interests to consider, I believe the starting point for the debate and a condition precedent for all Canadian programs should be the writer, the director and the two leads must be Canadian.

4867 These three positions are not “key creative” positions as you have been referring to them. They are critical creative positions. They are the creation, the realization and the voices of a Canadian series. Along with the producer, they form the leadership of a Canadian program.

4868 The final approvals and all elements of the majority of Canadian programs soon to be decided by foreign corporations we must ensure their executives only have Canadians to chose from.

4869 I suspect you each feel some of the same burdens that I do, so let me try and clear a path to a decision for you.

4870 Flexibility for foreign hires will erode our talent pool and distort our national identity. In a few short years, we will recognize that we have neglected one of our greatest natural resources and the talent pool we took 30 years to build will have been depleted. We will have clear cut the forest and it will take a generation to rebuild.

4871 Stability, on the other had, will empower a talent community in a time of industry evolution. It will renew creative passions for working artists. It will inspire the emerging talent of new generations and new immigrants. It will encourage community and allow for ongoing mentorship to those who want to tell Canadian and Indigenous stories.

4872 Guaranteeing the hiring of Canadian writers, Canadian directors and Canadian actors to ensure the Canadian‑ness of every production will deliver the results I believe you are looking for for the modernization of a Canadian program.

4873 Thank you.

4874 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for your submissions and thank you as well for being with us today.

4875 I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott.

4876 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much.

4877 I remember my first CRTC hearing as well. It wasn’t that long ago, so our goal is to make you feel as comfortable as folks can feel.

4878 MR. COCKBURN: You guys have been great. I’ve been watching you guys for days. You guys have been great.

4879 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

4880 In your written submission, you spent a lot of time on the showrunner position, describing it. You’ve clearly got a lot of experience in that domain, so I’ve got a couple of questions that will touch on that.

4881 MR. COCKBURN: Great.

4882 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: And there, you really spoke about kind of the paramountcy of the showrunner and then today, in your opening remarks, you were talking about the essential nature of kind of the writer and the director and the two lead positions.

4883 Is there a full kind of hierarchy of creative control and does that need to be captured more in the point system? Like we rely a lot on kind of one point, two points or zero points. Do we need a more complex system to accurately reflect who really calls the shots?

4884 MR. COCKBURN: I’m going to answer that question two ways, I think.

4885 I’ll speak to hierarchy first. There absolutely is a hierarchy in the creative process of the making of a television program. You could put the buyer at the top of that. They have final approval over everything. And then I would put the writer, director, lead actors and producer in the kind of leadership of the show. And then you would get to the ‑‑ what we have been referring to as key creatives, the heads of departments.

4886 There is a leadership to those things and they do carry different weights. In fact, key creatives are hired by the leadership of the show. The leadership of the show is approved by the buyer, so there’s definitely a connection to all those things.

4887 Should there be different points for each one of them? I’ve been listening to all of the things people have been telling you about the points system and how to kind of move the points system around. It’s quite a challenge you have for yourselves.

4888 If you want me to answer as it relates to the showrunner, absolutely the showrunner should be worth more points. They are, you know ‑‑ they are really a greenlight‑able element of the show. And in my position, when they were looking for ‑‑ you know, they greenlit a show and it’s by a junior writer, the showrunner’s the first person they’re going to get.

4889 The showrunner’s involved from day one if they’ve created it to day ‑‑ the final day. They are the architect, they are the CEO, they’re all those things. And so giving them more points is definitely the more appropriate thing.

4890 And I think, you know, that the writer’s worth two and the director’s worth two is correct as well. Actor essentially gets two.

4891 I don’t think beyond that you need to elevate anybody else or change anybody else’s point system.

4892 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

4893 And then what about in a situation where ‑‑ because sometimes we’re talking about functions, sometimes we’re talking about titles. Sometimes there’s clarity, sometimes there’s not. We’ve even heard that, you know, in the French system the position of showrunner doesn’t really exist. I suspect somebody’s fulfilling all of those functions.

4894 How do we button this up in a tight definition that doesn’t create opportunities for people to game the system, claim a point where they don’t merit it?

4895 Given all your expertise, are you able to provide us with some nice clean definitions that catch the essence of the position even if the title gets ‑‑

4896 MR. COCKBURN: I can give you a couple things, actually.

4897 First off, the recognition of the showrunner as a position is incredible. It is actually something we debate sometimes.

4898 In the United States, the showrunner is absolutely the head writer of the show. In Canada, that dynamic’s quite different because in the United States, shows are funded by the studios, so production is kind of given a pile of money and then the showrunner’s in charge of kind of navigating that through production.

4899 In Canada, as we all know, where we’re dealing with so many sources of financing that the producer actually has a lot of control and needs control because they have to satisfy all the requirements of those financiers. And so the showrunner can kind of come under that and not have as much control, necessarily, as the actual producer.

4900 But in terms of having the creative stewardship of the show and in terms of running production, that is absolutely the showrunner.

4901 So I’ll give you just a little bit of a ‑‑ you know, I’m a big fan of the WGC definition of showrunner, although I suspect that when you start running that through other people you’re going to run into trouble with the word “control”.

4902 So on a day‑to‑day basis, if I’m doing a showrunner deal, I’m negotiating approval, not control. So my client, as a showrunner, might have ‑‑ might be granted no approvals by the producer depending on how stern they are or they might be granted approval over the writers’ room or approval over the director’s choices of key cast choices. And we literally will negotiate those things that the showrunner will have approval over.

4903 In really collaborative relationships, you can get to the point where they will have shared approvals, so both the producer and the showrunner are sharing those approvals, but the producer will always keep financial control and approval based on finance so the showrunner can’t do something crazy like drive a truck off a bridge and, you know, whatever that’s going to be.

4904 So there is that element to the definition that is challenging.

4905 I’ll also tell you that there is actually kind of three tiers of showrunner. These are not formalized and I ‑‑ one of the reasons I love the idea that you’re introducing the idea of a showrunner to the process is because we might actually be able to get to a solid definition that we know we are working towards as to what that position is. But I’ll tell you what the three tiers are.

4906 The three tiers are ‑‑ you know, the kind of first tier is the junior writer who has written an amazing piece of content but has no experience or not enough experience to actually be the showrunner and they bring someone on to be the showrunner above them. So they are still kind of the showrunner in terms of their vision of the show. They created it. But there is another senior writer who is actually going to kind of navigate the writers’ room and also navigate production for them.

4907 The second tier would be showrunners who are absolutely the head writer and absolutely involved in production but are not being given financial information about the show. And again, this is a big battle that I go through on a day‑to‑day basis is that I’ll often have a showrunner who’s in charge of production on the show but is not being given a budget for the show.

4908 So the head of wardrobe knows what their budget is, the head of transportation or the head of any kind of other department knows what their budget is, but the showrunner actually doesn’t have any of those budgets. And so there’s kind of a training aspect to producers sharing that information so showrunners can be better showrunners.

4909 And then the third and the top tier would be showrunners who actually are the head writer, know how the budget is built and how they can navigate that budget and move money around and, in many cases, also know how the financing structure of the project works.

4910 Ideally, every showrunner would have financial knowledge.

4911 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I’m glad I asked.

4912 Pivoting a little bit, if we’re really rigid in insisting that all creative control rests with Canadians, are we foreclosing opportunities for coproductions and some international models that might actually be beneficial to the Canadian system both, you know, audiences and the people working in the system?

4913 MR. COCKBURN: It’s a great question because I’m very pro Canadian leadership. I’m not going to complain or deny that coproductions are a great part of our industry and I think those productions ‑‑ to be honest, I don’t know how all of those different coproduction treaties work and what has to be shared sometimes, what doesn’t have to be shared. As long as there are Canadians in leadership positions, then I think it’s great.

4914 Whether or not, you know ‑‑ I have been involved in coproductions, so if it’s a show set in Ireland but they’re going to have their post in Ontario and they’re going to use a Canadian editor or something along those lines, well, it’s still the showrunner is Canadian ‑‑ so the showrunner’s Irish and so there’s no problem with that showrunner being Irish in the coproduction. I probably would have more of an issue with a foreign showrunner running a show set in Canada being made as Canadian content, again ‑‑ but it’s a hard thing to navigate because I wouldn’t ‑‑ I’d have to know the exact situation to know specifically whether that was a good thing or bad thing.

4915 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: We’ll see if it’s helpful. I’ll invert the question and then we’ll see if that makes it easier to answer or not.

4916 But if we were to allow some more flexibility, could we kind of keep the scale balanced given some of those ‑‑ like you said, some of those positions way more than others. If we lock in a number of very key influential positions, does that buy us some leniency to allow foreign participation in some other roles and still meet all of our objectives with regards to Canadian creative control?

4917 MR. COCKBURN: I’m going to go back to my opening statement. I think the writer, the director and the two lead actors have to be Canadian every time. What flexibility you want to introduce after that, I have less of a stake in.

4918 The right cinematographer for the right show, absolutely if that’s a British cinematographer, an Australian cinematographer, whatever, that’s totally ‑‑ I think that would be totally acceptable in that context.

4919 It’s almost as if ‑‑ everybody keeps proposing these other models to you. I didn’t even think I should take the boldness of pretending that you guys could understand a model better than I could. But I’ve been thinking about it, especially in light of what I’d written.

4920 Take this for what you will, but in my mind you should be upgrading Canadian content and the point system. And by upgrading, I mean it worked. It worked very, very well and I understand people want to have it changed, but it worked very well. So if we’re going to upgrade it, I would suggest you take the writer, director and actor out of the point system and make them a requirement. Producer’s aren’t a point. They’re in a category above the whole system. And we could take writer, director, actor out of the point system and just make them a requirement to qualify for Canadian content.

4921 Then you could elevate the other key creatives that were in the old system to a two‑point status, as you asked me about before, and then you could put as much variability in that system as you want and flexibility for hair, for makeup, for recorded music, for all kinds of things, whatever the Commission feels is appropriate to add the flexibility people want because you will have secured, I believe, the Canadian‑ness of the production by taking those three out of the system and then, with the other key creatives at the top ‑‑ and again, you can use the old ones or you could add a couple more to it if you like. And maybe you make it three out of five have to Canadian, but you can put as much flexibility as you want in that.

4922 Your Canadian‑ness is protected by the decisionmakers at the top making decisions. The cinematographer still has to answer to the director. The editor still has to answer to the showrunner. Everybody below that system is reporting to Canadians and I think you protect your Canadian‑ness through that.

4923 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much for your thoughtful answers. I’ll turn it back to the Chair.

4924 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

4925 And I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

4926 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

4927 We’re coming to the end of the barbecue and so let’s try to make sure that we don’t end up with an indigestion. You’ve been very patient sitting in the room over there.

4928 So I have three short questions. My first one is about residency requirements. From what I can understand, your position is similar to that of the Writers Guild, which is that the director and the writer need to be located in Canada. And I’m just wondering, to what extent ‑‑ when you’re thinking about, you know, promoting talent and grooming talent, whether this creates an obstacle for some of the younger generation, the nomad creators who like to be elsewhere and to learn from their interactions with other communities. And so, you know, I’m trying to understand beyond the tax and paying income tax, what is the rationale and would it create, inadvertently, some mischief to the younger generation?

4929 MR. COCKBURN: Well, to be clear, residency is something I would be in favour of although, to be fair, things are changing and that may change in time. But in this moment in time, I think residence might be critical.

4930 I will say there is absolutely an LA bias. Absolutely an LA bias in the hiring practices of creative talent. If you have gone down to Los Angeles and you have three credits on three American TV shows, all of which got cancelled after one year, and no one has any idea if you were productive in that room or creative in that room, that resume still gets more attention than the person who’s been in Toronto for the last five years working in Canadian television.

4931 And part of the problem is, there is no deficit to leaving to go to LA. So if you decide oh, you know what, there’s not enough opportunity here, I’m going to go down to LA, see what else I can do in my career, you still qualify to be part of Canadian content and yet you are participating down here. So why would you not leave the country?

4932 Well, you don’t leave the country because you have work here, you have family here, you have all kinds of other things. But it is almost unfortunate that there is no reward for those of us ‑‑ or those creatives who have decided to stay here and build Canadian content and be a part of our cultural mosaic.

4933 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: But is the answer necessarily in imposing a residency requirement or is the issue more around visibility and helping young creators based in Canada connect with those communities and those who make decisions in LA via festivals and things like that?

4934 MR. COCKBURN: Well, there’s a number of other elements here, visas being one of them. Young creators generally can’t get visas to go to the United States. It’s the senior talent that we’re losing because they can qualify for an O1 visa, whereas for junior talent, they don’t have that much chance.

4935 I want to add one real key element to this. If you’re going to move forward with the showrunner being worth two points, I would argue absolutely that showrunner has to be a resident Canadian. And the reason is, if you remove some sort of optimism bias, then they’re going to hire who they can and it’s showrunners in LA are going to get the majority of that work. It’s not that some Canadian showrunners won’t get some, but the showrunners in LA are going to get that work.

4936 And then, again, using what you can already have on the table, they’re going to be able to choose between writers or directors. And so they could say, oh, I know a bunch of Canadian directors. I’m going to choose all my American friends down here in LA and the Canadian show is going to be written by an ex‑pat Canadian who left 25 years ago and their American writers that they’ve been working with for those 25 years.

4937 But even if they go the other way, they say, you know, I think I’ll hire all Canadian directors and you leave in the 20 percent exception, they’ll say ‑‑ and I’m gathering that it’s done by episode, so they’ll say, oh, I have two episodes that I can offer to my American friends and then I’ll hire two junior writers.

4938 Those exceptions will always, always, always go to senior people. And so you’re going to end up with the senior leadership of Canadian shows being people who are not staying in the country, not leaving their mentorship in the country who are hiring people who will not contribute and will take their experience on that show and move it down.

4939 The third part of that is, those junior writers will probably now leave because they have friends in LA. You know, the co‑executive producer of the show will say, “Oh, my god, you are super talented. I have a new show. Why don’t you come down? Warner Brothers will take care of your visa for you”.

4940 So I strongly believe the showrunner has to be a resident Canadian if you’re going to go down that road to make sure that they are hiring from the domestic talent pool and making sure we’re encouraging this community.

4941 The last ‑‑ and you wanted short answers because the barbecue’s coming to an end. I get that.

4942 But the residency thing, I think, is really interesting. People leave for three reasons. They leave because ‑‑ let’s take two things.

4943 Some people leave for weather. We can’t beat that. Some people leave because they are mega careerists who really want to kind of have the nine‑figure career. What I can tell you is that there are three reasons generally people leave.

4944 They leave for money, they leave for a larger audience and they leave for more opportunity.

4945 If we are going to bring the streamers in and we are going to require them to hire Canadians in key positions ‑‑ not make it optional, but in key positions ‑‑ all three of those things will be fulfilled at a higher level than they currently are and the desire and the motivation to leave will have lessened.

4946 So I am in favour of the residency, but I do believe that if we go down another road where we actually secure Canadian jobs in media, that will actually help build this community and there will be less desire and pressure to leave.

4947 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: I’m going to try and merge the last two questions and so I’ll leave it to you to find the right balance.

4948 So we’re interested in your position on IP retention and to what extent that is an important component of this equation, whether Canadians should be retaining IP and at what level.

4949 And the second part of my question, completely unrelated, although is around AI, right, and the impact this has in the industry that you represent and whether you have views on how the CRTC should approach AI.

4950 It’s a mouthful.

4951 THE CHAIRPERSON: Those are definitely two separate questions.

4952 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: It’s a mouthful of potato salad.

4953 MR. COCKBURN: I’ll answer the second one first. I have no idea how you should regulate AI. Good luck. I can’t really speak to that. Happy to look into it a little bit further.

4954 I do talk to my clients about AI on a regular basis. They are not using it to write. The idea that it’s being used as a tool as opposed to a product I think is probably accurate.

4955 An example would be you’re writing an episode of a procedural, you need to find 13 ways to kill someone with a candlestick. AI could be helpful to kind of spark your brain and give you an idea. You still have to write the scene, you still have to figure out what that scene is.

4956 And so I know that some people are using it in that regard, but no one is using it, as far as I know, to actually write.

4957 The IP question, without a doubt, 100 percent, the IP should stay in Canada and be owned by Canadian producers, period.

4958 Someone was mentioning the difference between Vancouver and Toronto and why Vancouver is in trouble and Toronto’s not. I would argue that that’s because Toronto has actual production companies, lots of them. Not that Vancouver doesn’t have some. They have some very good ones. But Vancouver really doubled down on service production where we’re just in a factory for cars, basically. They’re sending the IP up, we’re making it and then we’re sending it back down for them to profit on.

4959 In Toronto we have actual production companies who own the IP, who have built themselves from being start‑up companies to worth hundreds of millions of dollars based on owning the IP. So again, if you want a stable media industry, you need companies that are going to have some stability. That stability comes from the long tail of IP and that community is a necessary element of the entire ecosystem because the creative and the business meet with the production companies and the showrunners, writers and directors.

4960 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. That’s all.

4961 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. And thank you for the discussion with the Panel this afternoon.

4962 We will turns back over to you for any concluding thoughts.

4963 MR. COCKBURN: It’s interesting. You know, I had other comments here.

4964 I guess there’s one thing that I would like to actually read out to you because I think it’s an important thing for you to know because we’ve been talking a lot about the threats to the talent community and how people aren’t working and all that kind of stuff and we’re talking about flexibility and whether the streamers want to hire Canadians to do it, to make Canadian content.

4965 What’s interesting for me about that is we can actually look to service production as to how willing the U.S. studios have been to hire Canadians. So I thought I’d give you some ‑‑ now, to be very clear, I have a very small company. We don’t have a statistician. What we did do was we went to the Ontario Cteates database, we pulled all the service productions for the last 10 years and then we went to the IMDB and we figured out who directed all the episodes and who directed ‑‑ wrote all the episodes and were the top five people on IMDB as stars.

4966 So it works something like this. There were 305 lead roles in service production in the last 10 years, 34 of 61 series hired no Canadians in the top five. 25 resident Canadians were hired among the 305 actors as lead actors. That’s only eight percent.

4967 Interestingly, another 23 were non‑resident Canadians from Los Angeles. As many Canadians in Los Angeles are getting hired as domestic Canadians, speaking to your residency question again.

4968 The director numbers, 495 episodes were produced, 42 were directed by resident Canadians. The volume of experience, the volume of work, the money that left the Canadian system is enormous, and you don’t ‑‑ I’m not saying that we don’t love service production. I love service production. I have clients that work in service production. It is a vital part of our industry.

4969 But when we’re talking about the hiring of Canadians, we need to make sure there is a place where Canadians are getting hired and we are developing our talent pool.

4970 The last number is, as far as I know, as far as I can tell, of all the service production that was shot in the last 10 years, zero episodes were written by Canadian writers from Toronto ‑‑ from our domestic talent pool.

4971 I would really love it if the CRTC would take an approach that was talent first. It is quite remarkable to me that we talk about everything in the industry, and I’ve been sitting here for days, everybody is talking about talent. Everybody. But we do not prioritize talent as a resource that we need to find, we need to train, we need to develop, we need to make sure they get experience and then we need to retain them.

4972 Our talent pool just keeps on bleeding out to the world, but if we actually develop policies that made sure there were jobs here, made sure there was training here, made sure all that stuff was here and we as a nation came up with a national talent strategy, that would be extraordinary.

4973 The world is changing at a very rapid pace and LA may not be the centre of media any more. And in that world, Canada could become a content centre, but we cannot do that if we don’t have producers who own the IP and a thriving talent pool.

4974 Thank you very much.

4975 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

4976 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will reconvene tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

‑‑‑ L’audience est ajournée à 16 h 17 pour reprendre le jeudi 22 mai 2025 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Deana Johansson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton