Transcription, Audience du 22 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

4978 BCE Inc.

5229 Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA National)

5315 TLN Media Group Inc.

5422 Canadian Association of Films Distributors and Exporters

5515 Independent Broadcast Group/Le groupe de diffuseurs indépendants

5677 Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique

5791 Lisa Macklem

5881 Kate Sinclaire

Engagements

5396 Engagement

5407 Engagement

Transcription

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

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le jeudi 22 mai 2025 à 9 h 00

4977 THE SECRETARY: Good morning, everyone. We will now hear the presentation of BCE Inc. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues and you may begin.

Présentation

4978 MR. GRAHAM: Thanks very much, and good morning Chair, Commissions, and Commission staff. My name is Mark Graham, and I am senior vice‑president of Legal and Regulatory Affairs at Bell. On my right today are, from Bell Media, Sean Cohan, president; Suzane Landry, vice‑president of Content Development, Programming and News; and Justin Stockman, vice‑president of Content Development and Programming. And on my left are Jonathan Daniels, vice‑president Regulatory Law; Lenore Gibson, assistant general counsel; and Steve Cummings, vice‑president of Content Distribution at Bell Canada.

4979 I want to begin by thanking the Commission for your recognition of the significant challenges faced by Canadian broadcasters and the need to make meaningful changes to modernize Canada's broadcast regulatory framework.

4980 As you have heard from others over the last week, new platforms, global players, and changing audience preferences have created significant operational and financial challenges for Canada's licensed broadcasters. But at Bell Media, we also see this as a moment of possibility. We are building a digital media and content powerhouse with Canadian content at the centre. We tell Canadian stories to Canadians and share them with audiences around the world.

4981 This morning, my colleagues will outline our vision and how we plan to succeed. For my part, I want to be clear about the proposals we have made. Bell Media remains firmly committed to Canadian content and to our contribution to the objectives of Canada's broadcasting system. We have not asked for any reduction to our Canadian programming expenditure obligations.

4982 Our proposal does not fully level the playing field with foreign streamers, and we will continue to carry a greater obligation and make a greater contribution. We are simply asking for the Commission to modernize anachronistic rules to give us the flexibility to meet our obligations in the manner that best serves our audiences and that will allow us to continue to contribute meaningfully to Canada's broadcasting system in the years to come.

4983 With that, I will turn it over to Sean.

4984 MR. COHAN: Thanks very much Mark, and thank you to the Commission. I joined Bell Media as president 19 months ago, and it is my privilege every day to lead the talented team at Canada's leading broadcaster. It's a pleasure to be before you today for the first time.

4985 As Mark noted, at Bell Media, we are building a digital media and content powerhouse. We operate a suite of premier entertainment, sports, and news assets, offering Canadians the most compelling content in English and French.

4986 For 23 years, CTV has been Canada's most‑watched broadcaster. Noovo, which we launched in 2020, has shaken up the French‑language market. And shows like Sullivan's Crossing, The Amazing Race Canada, In Memoriam, and Quel Talent are resonating with Canadians.

4987 We are also leaders in providing the news Canadians need and deserve. On election night, Bell Media averaged 1.8 million viewers across CTV, CTV News, Noovo Info and CP24. Election coverage on our digital platforms delivered nearly four million video views. Over the course of the night, we reached well over 10 million Canadians across platforms, the most of any Canadian broadcaster.

4988 Our online streaming service, Crave, is Canada's only bilingual streamer. Great Canadian content like Shoresy, Little Bird, Late Bloomer, Office Movers, Bellefleur, L'empereur, Fermont, and many more are complemented by global content from HBO and others. Further, Q1 2025, this last quarter, was our most‑watched quarter ever on Crave, and Crave now has over four million subscribers.

4989 Canadian content is a core strength of our company and sets both our broadcast and digital platforms apart from foreign streaming services. Simply put, we compete against a largely unregulated digital giant pool in a crowded and rapidly changing marketplace. Producing and marketing great Canadian content is one of our tools for success, despite our market challenges. We generate Canadian stories to entertain, inform, challenge, and delight both Canadian and global audiences. That's why we have recently signed deals to develop new shows with well‑known Canadian creatives like Seth Rogen, Tom Green, Elliot Page, and Will Arnett, and why we are seeking greater flexibility to compete with the digital giants.

4990 We are very excited about the future of Bell Media. We have built a successful made‑in‑Canada bilingual streaming service. We deliver quality news and invest in successful Canadian content to entertain and inform over 40 million Canadians and audiences around the world.

4991 Before I hand it over to Suzane, we thought we'd show a short video to give you a taste of what we're talking about. Thank you.

‑‑‑ Présentation vidéo

4992 M^me LANDRY : Alors, tel que mentionné par Sean et comme le démontre la vidéo, la production originale canadienne constitue le pilier de notre stratégie de programmation. Cet engagement envers le contenu canadien est au cœur de notre offre et il est d’autant plus crucial pour notre auditoire québécois ainsi que pour l’ensemble des communautés francophones à travers le pays.

4993 Alors, notre engagement envers la culture québécoise se traduit concrètement par la production d’une centaine d’émissions et de séries originales chaque année. Il est important pour Bell Média de mettre en lumière le talent de chez nous à travers le pays grâce à notre écosystème de diffusion.

4994 L'attrait du public pour ces productions est indéniable. L’an dernier, sur l’ensemble des chaînes au Québec, 100 pour cent du top 50 des émissions les plus regardées étaient des productions originales. Alors, ce succès démontre l'intérêt des Québécois et confirme notre engagement en tant que diffuseur.

4995 De plus, notre soutien autant en développement qu’en production permet aux séries de chez nous de rayonner aussi à l’international. Par exemple, en mars dernier, la série Empathie a remporté le prix du public au prestigieux festival Séries Mania en France, et ce, devant de nombreuses séries internationales. Notre série Une affaire criminelle a été diffusée sur les plateformes d’ARTE en France, pour ne nommer que celle‑ci. Actuellement, nous avons une dizaine de séries originales qui ont obtenu des options et intérêts à l’international.

4996 Alors, nous sommes vraiment très fiers de contribuer à cette grande découvrabilité des talents et des séries canadiennes à travers le monde.

4997 MR. DANIELS: Mark and I will now summarize our regulatory proposals.

4998 We are supportive of the Commission's proposed point system for defining Canadian content, with two key changes. The first, the new flexibility for points must be contingent on adopting CAVCO rules regarding equity and IP ownership of Canadian programs. And secondly, a show with a non‑Canadian showrunner should be able to be recognized as Canadian content if that program has an exclusive Canadian premiere window for a minimum of 24 months on a Canadian broadcasting undertaking.

4999 These proposals would ensure that Canadian decision‑makers remain at the heart of Canadian programming and foster collaboration between Canadian broadcasters and foreign streamers.

5000 Turning to news, professionally produced news is by far the most in‑demand local programming, and, in a world of limited resources, our priority is to continue to provide that service to Canadians. We are not asking for any third‑party contribution to our news operations. What we are asking for is the flexibility to redirect funds from Bell TV to Bell Media's news operations. This would contribute to their financial viability and our ability to provide Canadians with a trusted source of news about their communities.

5001 Now, with respect to 9.1(1)(h) services, we have put forward a unique proposal for a fair and sustainable model pursuant to which all participants in the broadcasting system, including traditional and online providers, contribute to funding and distributing these public interest services. This will provide them with more stable funding and wider distribution.

5002 Mark?

5003 MR. GRAHAM: Finally, we are asking for the flexibility to make our large contribution to the Canadian broadcasting system without the need to meet outdated requirements for the exhibition of Canadian programming, local programming, and locally‑reflective news. These requirements were designed for an era of linear television and limited consumer choice that disappeared decades ago.

5004 To that end, we are proposing to maintain our existing Canadian program expenditure requirements of 40 per cent for our French‑language group; 30 per cent for our English‑language group; 90 per cent for CTV News Channel; and 50 per cent for our sports channels. This reflects our commitment to great Canadian content.

5005 In summary, we are not asking to reduce our contributions to Canada's broadcasting system. What we are asking for is the flexibility to make our contributions in a manner consistent with a market that is now entirely driven by consumer choice and audience demand, rather than the regulatory framework.

5006 Thank you for the opportunity to share our views, and we look forward to the discussion this morning.

5007 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup pour vos soumissions écrites. Merci pour votre présentation ce matin.

5008 We are also very much looking forward to the discussion, so we will dive in with Vice‑Chair Scott. Thank you.

5009 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much. Thank you, Chair.

5010 So I'd like to start on the theme of deregulation. So you'd proposed the removal of exhibition requirements which were originally put in place to support discoverability. In the on‑demand world, arguably, those are less effective than they had been. So in your opinion, what's a better way of keeping that focus on discoverability and incentivizing it in an on‑demand world that has notably changed from when those rules were put in place?

5011 MR. GRAHAM: Thanks for the question. I will start and then I'll probably ask Sean and Justin to jump in and speak a bit about, you know, why discoverability of Canadian content is in our strategic interest. And then that will tie back to the regulatory point I'm going to make, which is that we don't have a proposal for a regulatory rule regarding how Canadian broadcasters should make Canadian content discoverable. And that's for the reason that I think we're succeeding in doing that today in this online on‑demand streaming context.

5012 And we do that because, as Sean said during our opening, Canadian content is an important strategic tool and differentiator for our services. It's a core competency for us, and we have every incentive to make that content popular and successful.

5013 So maybe Sean and Justin would want to expand on that a little bit and I think talk a bit about exactly how we do that today.

5014 MR. COHAN: Yeah, I'll start and pass to Justin. I think ‑‑ thank you for the question, Vice‑Chair.

5015 First, as Mark indicated and all of the speakers you've heard from this morning indicated, Canadian content is an important competitive differentiator for Bell and for other broadcasters as they compete against the digital giants. And in our eyes, it's if we invest as substantially as we have, and we don't get them, those programs, those stories discovered, then you know it's kind of going to render us unsuccessful, our business unsuccessful overall. So we have every incentive, you know, internally to ensure discoverability.

5016 And so for us, we've undertaken really an effort ‑‑ a series of efforts to make that Canadian content what we call great, global, and ultimately profitable. So I'm not sure I would say ‑‑ and I'll pass to Justin ‑‑ whether we've seen or whether we feel, you know, humbly, whether we feel the need for there to be regulation to ensure the discoverability of those programs as it's a kind of a ‑‑ it's a core success factor for us at Bell regardless of regulatory framework.

5017 Justin?

5018 MR. STOCKMAN: Yeah, I'll just echo what Sean said where because of the high level of investment we're putting into these productions, we obviously then want to promote them so audiences find them. We use our own assets, our out‑of‑home network, promotional ads running through all of our various services on linear and digital, radio ads. We also spend money for external advertising to ensure we're promoting these original series we create.

5019 And even in our products in Crave, the carousel, all the posters, we always ensure that the Canadian productions we're creating are given ‑‑ are front and centre so again they find an audience, so we can actually get eyeballs to this great content we've invested into.

5020 You may have seen earlier this year we had a massive Crave originals campaign really highlighting our Canadian content that's been on since late last year and continues. It had great placement in the Grey Cup and the Super Bowl. Like we're really trying to ensure that audiences find this content.

5021 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks. So, sticking with the theme but kind of broadening the lens a little bit, so lots of parties talking to us about the burden of overregulation, but also lots of parties talking about risk of market failure, you know, certain types of content that won't get produced, certain objectives of the Act that won't get fulfilled. Are there other aspects of the regulatory framework that should be removed or dialled down, either because we've made a false assumption about market failure, one that no longer applies, or there are more elegant ways of achieving those objectives? What else is on your deregulatory list?

5022 MR. GRAHAM: Thanks for the question. I think the key elements that we've identified are exhibition requirements and, you know, that's partly because exhibition is, you know, not applicable in the same way, as you said, to the on‑demand world. But it's also because one of the things that exhibition requirements drives us to do is spread the expenditure across a greater volume for the sake of meeting the hours requirement, which reduces the ‑‑ potentially our ability to produce what we would consider very high‑quality shows that meet sort of audience demand now for example for prestige tentpole kind of content that has a very high budget per episode. And you might drive more viewership to Canadian content by investing in very popular high‑budget productions than you would by investing in a larger number of lower‑budget productions to fill an hour's requirement. So that's one, the exhibition requirements.

5023 And then we think of these as sort of variations of that, but the locally reflective news requirement, again, that's about ‑‑ and we can talk more about this, as I'm sure we'll talk more about news ‑‑ but the preview is, you know, we want our news desks to be making editorial decisions about what's relevant to their audiences based on their news judgment and not based on what technically qualifies as locally reflective under the rules in order to meet the quota. So that's another one.

5024 And then the third, we agree with the Commission's preliminary view on PNI, that in the world as it sits today, most of what was meant to be captured by PNI ‑‑ scripted drama, documentaries ‑‑ is not underfunded. Those are core offerings for streaming services. And so again you should let broadcasters direct their expenditures to where they believe audience demand is and to what will allow them to compete and succeed against the digital giants that are in the marketplace.

5025 So those are the three we've highlighted as I think you put it deregulatory.

5026 MR. COHAN: Yeah, I'd simply add, just in spirit, I think you've heard us say that we're re‑enforcing our commitment to producing at the same levels, which far outstrip today the minimum requirements as an ownership group. The spirit of what we're seeking is really flexibility across the board. It's flexibility to free up resources that we ‑‑ nearly I would say up to a hundred people that today are ensuring compliance with micro‑exhibition and other regulatory requirements; flexibility to move content and resources across linear and digital to compete with the digital giants; and flexibility in the sense of agility year to year to adapt to, as others have said, the changing tastes and the evolving technological landscape. So it's really, for us, it's about maintaining commitment and delivering bigger, better Canadian content while increasing flexibility and our ability to compete with the digital giants.

5027 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yes, I think you've largely answered my next question, but I'm going to dig in just in case. So as a thought experiment, then, if you ‑‑ and not as a proposal, either yours or ours ‑‑ if we dropped exhibition requirements, freed you of any CPE obligations, got rid of PNI, what would you do differently? It sounds like you would still produce as much. Maybe you'd focus a little bit more on audience‑driven strategies? Are there any other differences in how you would behave if you were completely freed of regulatory obligation?

5028 MR. GRAHAM: Yeah. Let me start, and then my colleagues may or may not want to jump in. But you're right. Specifically, you know, we haven't proposed, as you know, to eliminate CPE requirements, but I think the evidence suggests that even if you did, exactly as you said, we'd continue to invest in Canadian content.

5029 Based on our current revenue in our linear services, our CPE requirement equates to about $750 million a year right now. And I'll just take a detour here to contrast, you know, if our requirement were five per cent across both our linear and streaming services, our affiliated streaming services, that would equate to about $125 million. So already our requirement under our proposal is many, many multiples of a five per cent requirement. And even if it were 20 per cent, you know, you just do the math, it would be about $500 million compared to our current requirement of just over 750.

5030 But with those sort of suite of requirements, and ours currently being $750 million a year, we spend in excess of $900 million a year CPE. So to your point, it isn't the regulatory requirement that's driving our investment in CPE. And it's exactly what Sean and Justin and Suzane have talked about, which is that we're good at making Canadian content that's popular and that supports our business. And so that's what we want to do.

5031 I think, as you said and as Sean just alluded to, if we didn't have the various requirements that sit under that of how you divide up and slice up that CPE expenditure, we would continue to do what we're trying to do, you know, as we navigate those requirements today, which is find the way to put the budget and that expenditure toward the most popular, most impactful Canadian programming that will drive our business.

5032 M^me LANDRY : En fait, j’ajouterais, moi, pour répondre à votre question « Qu’est‑ce qu’on ferait de différent? » En fait, on va continuer à faire ce qu’on fait en termes de productions originales parce que, bien, on… J’ai donné des chiffres tout à l’heure en disant que 100 pour cent du top 50, par exemple, en production originale… le top 50, 100 pour cent, c’est des productions originales. Alors, c’est sûr qu’on veut continuer dans ce sens‑là.

5033 Des émissions d’intérêt national, on en fait et ça fonctionne très bien. On a donné l’exemple d’Empathie, mais on a des succès comme L’empereur, In Memoriam, Bellefleur, Aller simple. En documentaire, chaque année, on fait environ 20 séries documentaires par année. On a cinq séries documentaires uniques. Donc, des émissions d’intérêt national, on en fait. On en fait beaucoup. On va continuer parce qu’on le sait que c’est aussi ce qui attire aussi notre public, qui les retient sur nos plateformes.

5034 Je pense que, ce qu’on vous dit aujourd’hui, c’est qu’on veut maintenir nos investissements en dépenses canadiennes. Par contre, au niveau des règles d’exposition, quand on les avait faites à une époque, on les avait faites probablement pour stimuler la production de ce type de genre là, mais, aujourd’hui, on le fait.

5035 Alors, ces règles‑là n’ont plus besoin d’être. Et si on allège, en fait, le fardeau réglementaire, bien, cet argent‑là, on va pouvoir le réinvestir dans le contenu original. Donc, on n'a plus besoin de ce cadre‑là, de ces règles‑là, on le fait déjà. Et d’ailleurs, au Québec, on dépasse même nos objectifs en termes d’émissions en intérêt national. Donc, c’est pour ça que c’est un peu révolu, dépassé de maintenir ces règles‑là. Et ça nous permettrait de réinvestir autrement.

5036 MR. GRAHAM: And Commissioner Scott, if you’ll indulge us for one more minute, I want to ask Justin go give you one example of how today where we do have some success with a large budget program and then how the current roles are holding us back and then give me 30 seconds to talk about PNI.

5037 MR. STOCKMAN: Sure. So I can give you a concrete example for the English services where we have The Amazing Race Canada which we produce every year. It’s the number one show on television in the summer of Canadian or American shows. It’s the number one series. It’s family viewing, shows Canadians of all walks of life, seeing the whole country. As you can imagine, this is an expensive show to produce because it’s people travelling all over the country, but it’s worth it for us because we get great viewership.

5038 We’d love to do another series like that but, unfortunately, because of exhibition requirements we have to take that other chunk of money and spread it around to buy a bunch of lesser shows that we can fill all these hours on our linear service to hit this number we have to hit, which isn’t necessarily driving viewership, isn’t serving our audiences, but it’s ‑‑ and it’s really focused just on linear, which is not where many audiences are today, especially when our main competitors are Netflix and Amazon and they aren’t having to do this.

5039 And so we’d really love to answer your question about how we would do things differently. I think you would see more big productions like The Amazing Race Canada that really capture Canadians’ imagination and attention instead of just working to fill time on a schedule.

5040 MR. GRAHAM: And then the last thing just to give you a couple more numbers around like our current requirements and what we spend, so on PNI specifically based on our sort of most recent revenue, our regulatory obligation is about $80 million a year in spend in English and about 35 million in French, but what we spent most recently was $110 million in English and about $50 million in French, so we exceed our obligation, you know, by tens of millions of dollars.

5041 And the same kind of holds true with the amount that’s done through independent producers, about $85 million would have been our obligation and what we actually spent in PNI with independent producers is about $150 million. So just, again, to hammer home the point that the regulatory obligation is not what’s driving the behaviour but what we do ‑‑ what we are asking for is the agility to adjust that from year to year and the flexibility as we continue to do ‑‑ to execute this strategy on Canadian content.

5042 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Got it.

5043 Yes, my last question on this theme, anyway. So if you get the proverbial level playing field, you’re still facing off against what you described as the digital giants with their global scale and global reach, but it sounds like you’re saying that production of Canadian content is actually a competitive differentiator rather than a setback, at least for BCE.

5044 One, to what extent do you think that’s true of the Canadian system as a whole and, two, are there other competitive differentiators that are worth noting?

5045 MR. COHAN: Thank you for the question and the interest.

5046 Yeah, I think, as you said, as you alluded to, Canadian content producing ‑‑ what we call creating great, producing compelling content is one of three or four key past success for BCE, the others being leaning into or driving digital advertising and the broad availability or ubiquity of the content we produce, the other being leaning into streaming specifically with services like Crave and TSN.

5047 Certainly we think both domestically and abroad, the production of making great global and profitable Canadian content that is relevant and appealing to Canadians as well as folks around the world is a key differentiator for us. It’s ‑‑ and whether that’s ‑‑ that can be news, that can be entertainment, that can be local. It’s all ‑‑ it can be all of those things, but it’s a, without a doubt, differentiator and it’s something that I recognize or we recognize when I ‑‑ I’ve only been in the seat, as I mentioned, for a short time. But from the outside, having been a 30 plus year professional in the global media entertainment ecosystem, I recognize that ‑‑ we recognize that Canadian content and Canadian creative output is actually underestimated globally. Some of the world’s ‑‑ many of the world’s best creatives are Canadians, whether they live here or in LA or in London or in Guam, for that matter, doesn’t matter.

5048 And so what we’ve recognized, what we’ve kind of keyed into is both in terms of Canadian viewership but also in terms of taking these things out, taking both the output broadly out to the rest of the world, but also individual stories, we can make bigger, we can make more and we can sell abroad and then use that as kind of sustenance or kind of fuel to come back and invest more here in Canada.

5049 So yeah, it is ‑‑ it’s very much one of our differentiators. It’s very much an important part of our strategy. It’s a ‑‑ whereas other folks ‑‑ I was struck before I came on board here with Bell. I’ve done business in the market for many years, but I’d heard leaders describe the Canadian content requirements as a tax, which was very strange to me where you’d have folks say, “Well, yeah, we acquire U.S. content and that’s what rates” and then “We’ve got to do this Canadian stuff over here”. And it’s ‑‑ frankly, it's kind of very core to our vision as a group and I think core to why I came on board, frankly, is the idea that, actually, is to kind of take that on its side and say, actually, we’re not going to out‑Netflix or out‑Amazon those folks. In fact, we need to partner with those folks, and we’ll talk about that in a second.

5050 But it’s that what we do that’s different and competitive and ensure has driven a bunch of momentum for us and will continue to do that is harness the creative excellence that is the Canadian creative community, whether here or abroad, and not only drive great, great kind of production or content for the 40 plus million Canadians, but also for folks around the world. And we call ‑‑ we’ve undertaken a series of initiatives we call “Northern Lights” to that end, which is, again, pushing ‑‑ really pushing the ‑‑ not just the Bell Media brand, but the Canadian brand, if you will, around the world and ultimately, even if it’s not with us, the idea is kind of raising the visibility and perception around Canadian content the way that other markets like the UK have done in a global context will help everyone in the ‑‑ you know, in the Canadian market.

5051 And of course, we as the largest player will benefit, you know, proportionately.

5052 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: And given that that’s such a key differentiator, is there a risk of perverse incentives where any requirement we impose on the digital giants to produce Canadian content ends up subverting the Canadian broadcasting system by requiring them to compete against you on exactly what you’re setting as your point of differentiation?

5053 MR. COHAN: A great point. I think the first thing I’d say, first off, there’s a ‑‑ there’ll be another day, I think, where we talk about the relative standards, but their requirements to invest are significantly below ours. I think part of what you would have heard Mark and my other colleagues say is part of what we’re hoping and what I just alluded to a minute ago ‑‑ what we’re hoping is that we as an ecosystem will continue to encourage the cooperation of digital giants and Canadian broadcasters and Canadian producers, and so those ‑‑ the requirements that the CRTC may put down and increase on foreign streamers, particularly, you know, given how their ‑‑ today how they’re structured and how we can see them structured, I think could encourage greater cooperation which, again, ultimately you could argue that if you had the same exact requirement that they would be producing at the same level as us and, therefore, would erode one of our advantages, but ultimately, if I think about your and our broader goals to stimulate cooperation, partnership amongst the ecosystem in driving great Canadian content and of participation by producers and ultimate benefit ‑‑ the ultimate benefit of the 40 plus Canadians ‑‑ 40 million plus Canadians, excuse me, I don’t see that as a significant risk and if that were to happen, I’d welcome that risk because it ‑‑ again, we’d compete on several of the other kind of success factors or pillars to our success.

5054 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. I think that pivots us nicely towards IP, I think, because you spoke about partnerships and cooperation.

5055 We’ve heard the importance of kind of the IP rules come up in that context a lot. So what is kind of the ‑‑ you know, we’ve heard everything from all the IP must be Canadian owned to 51 percent. How do we optimize the IP ‑‑ Canadian IP ownership requirements to foster those types of collaborations and partnerships without undermining kind of the Canadian creative control over production?

5056 MR. DANIELS: So we really appreciate getting that question because, as we alluded to, we had ‑‑ when we looked at your proposed changes to the 15‑point system, we were generally in favour of it and we understood that the purpose behind the changes was to make it a little bit easier for ‑‑ to qualify as Canadian content that streamers would make. But at the end of the day, the key thing is to have key Canadians in creative positions and decision‑making roles, and so that’s the kind of discussion at the margin as to 10‑point system, 15‑point system.

5057 But for us as a starting point, we think that’s not sufficient. There has to be control. You say IP. It’s just generally the equity interest in the actual programs. I don’t want to focus strictly on the IP. And that’s why we said we think you need to adapt what we call the CAVCO rules as part of the definition of Canadian content, what would qualify, which is really about ensuring that not just the creative decisions but those that actually have the ownership interest in the program are Canadian because that’s key to the decisionmaker. And so that’s why we weren’t so focused and fussed on the 15‑point system as much as making sure that we preserve that aspect.

5058 Now, as to your question as to how do you do that aspect and ‑‑ my suggestion in that regard is that you actually adopt ‑‑ like that you simply adopt whatever CAVCO rules are going to be, and let me explain what I mean by “going to be” because we don’t know what the CAVCO rules are going to be.

5059 But we think that if you make the statement that ownership of IP is very important and needs to be preserved and that’s part of the definition and we adopt the CAVCO rules, those would be the rules that they are today, which I think it’s 100 percent equity and there’s three criteria about ‑‑ like for the IP it’s 100 percent and ‑‑ without getting into all the details.

5060 But there’s been some others. Like I know you’ve discussed and I know they haven’t appeared yet, but there’s been references to the Blue Ant model where they’re talking about reducing to like a 51 percent or something like that, how else do you do it. And our suggestion on that is actually that you at the CRTC don’t actually have to decide that. You can kick that to CAVCO and let them decide after they adopt to your 15‑point system.

5061 And so I think it’s important that the CRTC establish the ownership criteria as component as adopted by CAVCO with the intention and flexibility that it can change as CAVCO looks to revise whether, you know, there is a change to the system or not in terms of at the margins is it, you know, a shared IP or ‑‑ and the other sort of model because there’s different ideas, but I don’t think you have the record. And I’m not necessarily sure that you’re best positioned to decide that aspect of it as long as you come back and say ownership is part of the ‑‑ you know, equity ownership is part of it.

5062 MR. GRAHAM: So I think what you're hearing from us is we’re just trying to find a practical way through to the end result that the rules of what counts as Canadian put Canadians in a position to have an equal say in partnerships with foreign streamers around the production of Canadian content and developing those in a mutual beneficial way rather than a way where the foreign streamers are kind of doing what they would otherwise do almost as a service production basis in Canada without a Canadian producer or broadcaster being at the table.

5063 MR. DANIELS: And I just neglected to mention, I think that’s consistent with what the government asked you to do in terms of Section 13(d) of the Policy Direction to you where, you know ‑‑ it’s 13(c), sorry, where it said, you know, to support Canadian ownership of intellectual property, so we think that is consistent and that’s, therefore, appropriate for the CRTC to add that to the definition.

5064 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks.

5065 My next question is about 9.1(1)(h) services. We’ve got your proposal for the creation of a fund. Others supported that idea as well. Rogers had proposed a formulation where the cost to BDUs of carrying the 9.1(1)(h) get credited towards CPE. What do you think of that proposal?

5066 MR. DANIELS: So Rogers is taking ‑‑ coming from a standpoint that they’re looking at a five percent overall group obligation and we haven’t come here and said have a five percent overall group obligation. What we said instead is that for the BUD portion, you know, the five percent would match what the streamers have. That’s their obligation. Work within that framework.

5067 So we can see ‑‑ like I understand the merits of looking and saying, hey, to the extent that we have to support 9.1(1)(h) services that those services should be recognized, but we think our proposal makes more sense, which is to actually take all of the money that you’re spending and like you decide for each service what the revenue requirements are and just apply that equally across all participants in the market, including the streamers, which gets back to your notion of do we see streamers participating, yes, we think they should.

5068 And we think that would put those services which you ‑‑ and I want to be clear. We don’t own a single 9.1(1)(h) service, so this is not about us trying to protect those services because Bell Media has them. We don’t have a single one. But we see this as you being able to do that, a way to ‑‑ these are the most important services. You’ve established that. It’s so important that every Canadian subscriber of a BDU must have access to these services. You’ve mandated that. And so ‑‑ but the problem is, of course, people are leaving the system. They’re dropping out.

5069 I think it’s five percent a year average drop of BDU in terms of what they’re seeing from revenues, and so ‑‑ mostly from subscribers cutting the cord. And so those people are losing access to those services which is putting financial strain on all of those providers because they have less customers, so less revenue, in addition, less visibility.

5070 And so we think if you went with a model that said we’re just going to put that and build that in as the first part of the five percent for everyone, streamers, BDUs, everyone pay and we’re ‑‑ that will give them financial stability. It means that if a customer’s cut the system, it doesn’t impact them, but it also means that the streamers would have the incentive to carry it.

5071 If you’re paying a portion of your money to it, why wouldn’t you put them on your platform and add them? And so that’s going to increase the visibility.

5072 So we think this is a win‑win for the Canadian system and so we think that’s probably the most practical and best way for you to go.

5073 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks.

5074 Last question from me before I turn it back to the Chair. So it’s about the different ways people have proposed contributing to creation of Canadian content, which includes things like investments in training, promotion of Canadian content. And do we need ‑‑ it’s kind of a two‑part question.

5075 One is, is there ‑‑ do we need kind of an exchange rate for those things? Is it a dollar invested in training of equal value to the advancement of our objectives as a dollar spent on program creation versus promotion? So are those things equivalent or is there some kind of multiplier that’s necessary?

5076 And then two, kind of more broadly, is there value in converting everything to common currencies, like saying everything falls within the umbrella of your CPE requirements and then these are various ways in which you can contribute to it or are we better off setting different targets for different aspects?

5077 I’m not even sure which one of those might be more simple or complex, let alone which might be more effective.

5078 MR. GRAHAM: Unfortunately, neither are we. I think ‑‑ I guess we'd offer two thoughts on this, and this isn’t a core area where we have a proposal for you, so we’re going to try to be helpful, but we don’t have the answer.

5079 I think whether it’s an exchange rate, as you put it, or ‑‑ and sort of whether it all comes out of the same bucket of obligation or they’re separate obligations. I think you need to be cautious that you don’t unintentionally unwind the contributions to what are the core objectives in the Act in terms of I call them outputs, you know, great Canadian content that serves audiences, and focus instead on what might be inputs like training or promotion.

5080 I mean, promotion is captured in certain ways in budgets that get funded and counted through various mechanisms, but as is, you know, obviously the personnel who learn as they’re producing content, but you want to keep focused on the outcomes and I think if we start imposing additional requirements on people we’re creating incentives to think about all the different, you know, non‑content production things that people can do to meet their obligations it might distract from your core objectives.

5081 So that’s not a concrete answer, but that ‑‑ I think that’s the impression we have when we hear some of these proposals. We’re not ‑‑ you know, we don’t have a position specifically for or against any of these, but that’s what we’re reflecting on is how do we ‑‑ if you’re going to go down this road, making sure that they really are closely married to the ultimate objectives and that they aren’t, you know, giving some people a way out of contributing to the system or imposing it or for people who want to make large contributions to the system, distracting them from that mission to focus on some other like micro mission that they’ve been given.

5082 MR. COHAN: If I could add, you know, to that end I think you won’t be surprised to hear me say, I think, if there’s a significant investment in programming, there is ‑‑ the entity that’s producing or the entity that’s commissioning that has every incentive to train its folks to handle and produce the best content and, as you’ve heard from us earlier, every incentive to promote that.

5083 And so I think the first thing is I’d say maybe core to this all is again, coming back to Mark’s point, the outcome. That’s kind of the first thought. And the second thought offered in the same vein as Mark did, you won’t be surprised to hear us say if you add more layers to this or more complexity to this, it may run counter to the flexibility, the spirit of the flexibility that we’re looking for.

5084 We’ve spent ‑‑ you will have heard lots of folks this past week talk about the challenges in the market today, the, you know, linear subscribers, BDU environment just referred to declining, viewership on linear declining, advertiser dollars moving from linear. You have lots of broadcasters who are having ‑‑ you know, several who are having financial trouble. And it’s a challenging world to keep up with the technology and the consumer preferences.

5085 That said, the flip side is, we’ve said, hey, there’s also great opportunity. Good news, all of us, all 40 plus million Canadians and folks around the world, are consuming as much or more video than they did ‑‑ as they did yesterday bounded only by sleep and, for better or worse, sleep is losing. It’s just about where and how folks are viewing their video and listening on their earbuds to audio and the business models associated with that.

5086 So for us, that’s the underpinning for we are consistently going to come and ask for more flexibility rather than less complexity or, you know, exchange rates or interchange between things. We’re going to stand by ‑‑ we are standing by our commitment. We’re going to exceed our commitments, but just looking for flexibility to compete in a very challenging world.

5087 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much.

5088 Madam Chair, those are my questions.

5089 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

5090 And I will turn things over to Commissioner Paquette.

5091 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you, and hello.

5092 Perhaps some questions about the model that you propose. You propose that vertically integrated BDUs be permitted to transfer 1.5 percent of their contributions to their over‑the‑air stations and the same, you also propose that direct‑to‑home BDUs be authorized to increase their contributions to their over‑the‑air stations in return of which any broadcaster that takes advantage of this rule would match the dollar spent. So that’s what you put on the table.

5093 Do you see this as a long‑term solution since the TV distribution revenues may continue to decrease while online revenues will maybe continue to increase?

5094 MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, thanks very much for the question.

5095 No, we don’t see it as either a complete or a permanent long‑term solution to the financial challenges that news operations in Canada face. We are heavily invested in news, as you know, but our conventional TV news ‑‑ so we spend more than $200 million a year in our organization on TV news. But our conventional TV news loses about $40 million in a year.

5096 And conventional TV at large can no longer subsidize losing money on news operations, because conventional TV broadcasters as a group, between 2019 and 2023, lost $1.2 billion in aggregate. You know, 34 of our 36 conventional services lose money.

5097 So, conventional TV can’t subsidize the news operations on conventional TV. So, our proposal is really a small, modest contribution towards the news operations, to say if there is some other contribution that can be made in the case of vertically integrated BDUs from their BDU operation toward the collection of news, the production of news is priority for the system, and we should make that contribution or create that incentive.

5098 But it is not, as you suggested either ‑‑ we agree it is not a permanent or a complete solution.

5099 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Isn't it ‑‑ because when I look at Bell’s proposal, I feel that what you propose is based on what we can see right now. Like even for PNI, like we say the streamers are producing some content, so we shouldn’t have any obligation in this regard.

5100 Isn’t there a risk that the business models will evolve, and in a few years the situation, this situation won’t stand?

5101 MR. GRAHAM: I would say it’s not just a risk, it’s almost a certainty that business models will continue to evolve. So, we agree.

5102 Our proposal ‑‑ I will deal with both the news and the PNI and CPE that you mentioned. I gave the figures, so I won’t go through them again in the interests of time, on CPE and PNI.

5103 Our proposal results on CPE in a much larger obligation for us than would applying the same rules that apply to the foreign streamers of 5 percent across our whole ownership group. It’s many multiples our obligation under our proposal or even under like the Corus proposal of 20 percent across a whole ownership group, including affiliated streaming services. We’re still in excess, the obligation we’re proposing.

5104 So on CPE, yes, our proposal is tied to the existing services, but that’s really in a genuine effort on our part to help with sort of changed management and transition in the industry.

5105 We could have proposed, like Corus did, 20 percent across all services, which would have lowered our obligation. But we didn’t want to come in with a proposal lowering our obligation. I mean, you’re hearing from us that we are committed to continuing to invest in Canadian content.

5106 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So I understand you see your proposal more as a transitional proposal; that in a few years, we would have to come back and think of something else?

5107 MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, I think like ‑‑ I don't think it’s a few years. Like our proposal, it’s so far in excess, the obligation that we’re suggesting compared to what is being applied to streaming services specifically, of 5 percent, that it may never, and certainly not in any short term, result in us crossing that pivot point.

5108 Quite frankly, we would happily modify our proposal to suggest that our obligation should be the greater of our current CPE on our existing services or 5 percent across both linear and streaming services, like the greater of, and the 5 percent is not going to factor in in any kind of short time horizon.

5109 So, like yes, it’s tied to the tradition, yes, it will continue to evolve. But on CPE specifically, that evolution is not going to change the fact that we are going to be carrying a much larger obligation. And as we’ve said, we will continue to exceed that obligation.

5110 MR. DANIELS: If I could just add, if you come back to when we were here a couple of years ago, we were asking for a news fund. We argued that the streamers should have to contribute and set up a news fund.

5111 The Commission agreed and did that, and right now as a result of that, both streamers and us as a BDU continue to pay into a news fund that we’re not eligible to withdraw from, with exception of the radio, very minor radio. But on the TV, which is the bulk of it, we are not able to do it.

5112 We think that’s part of your long‑term solution, and we are not opposing it. We haven’t come here, like maybe others have, to say oh, we don’t want to pay into the ILNF. Our proposal was not to look at the ILNF. Our proposal was not to look at the ILNF.

5113 Specifically what we tried to do, is we understood from the Commission’s decision a couple of years ago, yes, we think news is important and we are going to focus on independent news programmers. We also have an issue. We have ‑‑ as we say, we’re losing $40 million a year in the conventional newscast. So, we looked at what would just be a better way that we could help finance that.

5114 So, we suggested that it was a redirecting of money from community TV, which has not been ‑‑ you know, the bulk of it, that’s where this 1.5, the bulk of it is associative community TV, because it’s just not been a very successful product, which we can explain more about.

5115 But at a high level, I just wanted to explain that we are still supporting for long term the notions of the ILNF for independence, and so on. The Commission chose not to direct part of that money to us, so we figure all right, when we’re using our money, what’s a better way? It’s a much better way to look at that.

5116 So, it was just a practical solution.

5117 MR. COHAN: That said, I would add I've long admired the work of this group, the work of the CRTC, and at this moment I admire, and at times find daunting, the challenge that is before you all. And it’s before all of us.

5118 To your point, we are all in a moment of transition. We at Bell talk consistently. We use the other T‑word, transformation. And we are consistently talking about becoming more and working to ‑‑ and we are happily seeing some success at it ‑‑ becoming more than the leading legacy broadcaster but also, as we’ve talked about, being a digital media and content powerhouse. And that transformation, none of us have a crystal ball.

5119 So I think I would align, or you are quite right in your characterization, that the world is changing very rapidly. We don’t know where it’s going to go, and in all likelihood, part of the challenge is that in a couple of years, regardless of what happens out of these hearings, in a couple of years or maybe sooner, we will be looking carefully to adapt both the regulatory and business termed frame to the new reality. We are in a moment of transition.

5120 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, do I have time for last? I got the Post It, which is a very bad sign.

5121 My next question would be about local programming.

5122 You mentioned that you can no longer be tied to a system that requires mandatory spending based on geographic location.

5123 Isn’t local programming the strength of traditional broadcasting?

5124 And what would change in your approach or programming if you were not tied anymore to geographic locations?

5125 MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, so I'm going to ask Suzane in a second to give a couple of practical examples. The only thing worse than you getting a Post It note is me getting a Post It note from the Chair, so I will be short.

5126 You are right. Local programming is a core strength. We spend $117 million a year on our local newscast compared to a locally reflective news obligation of $59 million. But the difference between a local newscast and the technical requirements always of a locally reflective news story is what we are trying to address, the flexibility or the inflexibility that the requirements create.

5127 So a story might be relevant to viewers in a local market, highly relevant, but it might technically be outside the footprint of that local market. And therefore, sending a reporter to that story to report it into the local market doesn’t mean the definition of locally reflective news. And there’s a whole apparatus of people in the organization who therefore don’t spend their time producing news. They spend it policing what goes on the newscast to meet the requirements.

5128 And Suzane can give a couple of examples.

5129 M^me LANDRY : Je commencerais en disant que, pour nous, à Bell Média, c’est vraiment important d’offrir de l’information locale, fiable, de qualité aux Canadiens autant en français qu’en anglais. Donc, ça, je pars avec ça en vous disant ça, que c’est très, très important.

5130 Par contre, le problème qu’on rencontre avec la nouvelle, le reflet local, c’est que, actuellement, avec les règles, c’est que nos décisions éditoriales sont limitées par une réglementation qui est rigide. Alors, ce que ça fait, c’est que… Je vais vous donner des exemples un peu d’incohérence parce que les règles qu’on a nuisent, en fait, à offrir une information que, nous, on juge de qualité.

5131 Je vous donne des exemples. Récemment, Noovo Info a envoyé des journalistes à la frontière canadienne suite aux décisions américaines parce que, évidemment, ça avait des impacts sur les entreprises québécoises. On les envoie à Saint‑Georges de Beauce. Alors… parce qu’il y a des entreprises qui exportent aux États‑Unis. Selon les règles du CRTC, ce contenu n’est pas valable, ne peut pas être comptabilisé comme un reflet local. Donc… Et pourtant, c’est une communauté, là, à une heure de route de Québec.

5132 Pendant la campagne électorale fédérale, CTV National News a visité 24 communautés au Canada. Alors, c’est important parce qu’on est allés voir les enjeux locaux, justement, pendant une campagne électorale. Alors, on va à Edmonton, Sydney, Kamloops. Bref, on ne peut pas le comptabiliser comme reflet local.

5133 Même chose pour Noovo Info, on a envoyé une journaliste en Alberta. Encore là, c’est intéressant de montrer au public des portraits de leurs chefs en campagne. Est‑ce que le discours… est‑ce qu’il y a un décalage avec le discours quand les chefs sont à l’extérieur du Québec? Mais on ne peut pas le comptabiliser, encore là, comme reflet local.

5134 On couvre l’Assemblée nationale à Québec, important, évidemment, dans une démocratie, pour être bien informé. On ne peut pas le comptabiliser dans aucun marché.

5135 Alors, ce que ça fait, c’est que nos exigences nous forcent dans le fond à privilégier du volume et non pas de la qualité.

5136 Alors, pour répondre aux obligations, qu’est‑ce qu’on fait? Alors, dans nos régions, les équipes régionales vont aller couvrir toutes les petites conférences de presse. Et, ça, bien, on le fait au détriment d’un journalisme que, nous, on appelle un journalisme d’impact, où on va regarder des enjeux locaux.

5137 Alors, les règles actuellement, c’est un carcan mathématique. C’est le plus de nombre d’heures qui est à l’antenne qui est calculé et non pas la valeur éditoriale. Alors, c’est pour ça que je dis que ça nuit à la qualité.

5138 Et je dirais même que ça nuit à la rétention des téléspectateurs parce que, actuellement, de l’information, on en a sur toutes les plateformes. On parlait tantôt du numérique. On peut s’informer partout. Alors, donc, si, nous, on n’offre pas la bonne information au bon moment, les gens vont aller la chercher ailleurs. Et, s’ils vont la chercher ailleurs, ça veut dire qu’on les perd.

5139 Donc, ce qu’on vous demande, dans le fond, c’est moins de rigidité pour offrir des nouvelles encore plus pertinentes. C’est ça qu’on vous demande.

5140 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Merci beaucoup. Pas d’autres questions.

5141 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

5142 Let’s keep rolling with Commissioner Naidoo.

5143 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. Thank you so much for being here today.

5144 I’m sorry, there’s just so many questions everybody wants to ask you, and some of them I think you’ve probably touched on. So, some of them you may find a little bit redundant. But we all are trying to get to our own understanding of things.

5145 We are getting tight for time, and we all really want to ask you questions. So, I may direct this question out there, and if you think just one of you should answer it, then that’s fine.

5146 The first question I have is: In order to finance local news, you propose taking what you dedicate to local expression and actually putting that towards local news.

5147 As you state in your intervention, that change would mean that Bell TV would no longer provide community television to its terrestrial BDU subscribers, and that all contributions authorized to be directed to community television would then be transferred to the production of news programming. Even though this would be positive for local news, what would the impact of this be on the future of community television?

5148 I think you’ve heard other intervenors last week who came before us who would have some interest in that. Thank you.

5149 MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, thank you for the question. I’m going to answer it. I don’t want you to take the brevity of my answer to reflect disinterest. We would talk for a long time about this, but I want to be respectful of your time.

5150 In short, I think the thing that really hammers this home for us, the cost per viewer per month for community TV on Bell is $181. Like, that’s what we spend on community TV per month for each viewer that views the content in that month.

5151 If you compare that to our news budget, our cost per viewer just for one day ‑‑ so the whole monthly cost of the news operation just on election day, you just take the viewers from election day, is like about a dollar in the month. That’s for viewers on one day, not viewers across the whole month.

5152 So, 180 times difference, approximately. Like that’s really what it is.

5153 In a world of limited resources, we have to make choices. This money is better spent serving the interests of the broadcasting system in news operations than in community TV. The community element will continue to exist in the system, both through the streaming services and YouTube. And a lot of the places that YouTube in particular where that type of content is produced now, or other social media services, and through other BDUs who elect to continue community television, independent community television producers who access through funds or otherwise.

5154 So, the element will continue to exist. But for us, it’s a much better bang for the buck, for the system, on news operations.

5155 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you for that.

5156 I want to talk about your quotas on local news.

5157 You suggest not wanting quotas on local news and locally reflective news. But without some minimum, what protection is there for local news? I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that some are going to say that this is a very slippery slope, that couldn’t stations just cut back on staff and double up on content from national newsrooms or from other markets without a focus on a local content, or more importantly local context to national stories? And let’s not forget that local newsrooms also contribute to the discussions happening at a national level, that they are also feeding into the giant of large newsrooms as well.

5158 You say that this allows news directors to have editorial control, or more editorial control. If they are told to do a minimum amount of content now, how can lifting that give them more editorial control?

5159 And I’m wondering ‑‑ I guess the question that I’m wondering is: Are you having local stations saying that they can’t fill their newscasts with local content with the quotas that are out there?

5160 MR. GRAHAM: So, two things.

5161 First, I don't doubt that some people will say to you it’s a slippery slope. Again, I take you back to our locally reflective news expenditure obligation is, based on our current revenues, about $59 million a year in what we spend just on our local newscast and not the national newscast on conventional. Just our local newscast is $117 million a year. So nearly double what the expenditure obligation is.

5162 So they may say it’s a slippery slope, but again, back to the point we started on, the obligation is not what’s driving the local newscast.

5163 The editorial point we’re making is not that there aren’t enough local stories, locally relevant stories to fill the newscast. It’s that what counts as locally relevant sometimes forces editorial decisions to air a less impactful, less important story, because it is within the geographic boundary that counts as locally relevant for that particular station, rather than in a neighbouring community where a story is highly relevant to their whole area, it’s highly relevant to the audience in the local area. It should be on the local newscast with a local perspective, but it gets cut because there is this whole administrative apparatus of people who need to make sure we’re complying with the hours requirements, and they are saying you’ve got three stories that are regionally important or are important, national stories of local importance, but they don’t count So you have to cut one of those stories and put in this other local interest story that does count.

5164 And the journalists are going that’s not what our audience wants. It’s not what’s most informative. But that’s what they have to do to meet the regulatory requirement.

5165 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for explaining that. On a ‑‑

5166 MR. COHAN: Could I ‑‑

5167 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yes, please go ahead.

5168 MR. COHAN: I’m sorry, and I will do it quick. I promise.

5169 Just some quick thoughts to add.

5170 One, I would remind that the current regime, remind us all that the current regime has had Bell and others making tough unpleasant choices, even just in the current environment around news over the last few years.

5171 Second, I think we’ve talked at great length about the administrative burden and the compliance resources that could go, instead, on screen.

5172 I think we’ve talked a fair bit about the need for flexibility to compete and to be a news provider in digital, on digital platforms, where a lot of the newer age cohorts, the Gen‑Z’s and whatever they call the other, you know, three generations behind them, are getting their news, not from linear but from other sources. And we want to be a provider there.

5173 And I would add, finally, that we see news as a powerful tool to drive not only CTV or local networks but also in the future Crave, iHeart and our presence across all sorts of social media networks.

5174 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you. I was going to flesh that out a bit more, but I think we’ve covered it. And I really appreciate it.

5175 My last question. You discussed the flexibility to transfer funds from Bell TV to Bell Media News Operations. And this is an option, obviously, for your company to fund news. But we’re obviously looking at the entire industry, and we’re looking at various things and how they affect not just your company but overall.

5176 I’m wondering how can we look at supporting news across the industry?

5177 In other words, you’ve proposed something that works for you, but what do you think needs to be done beyond just your company?

5178 MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, thanks. I think the main initiative the Commission has taken, and as Jonathan said, we haven’t opposed or tried to take any resources away from, is the ILNF. So you have the ILNF that provides support to non‑VI news operations around the country. The vertically integrated organizations would be able to take advantage of the proposal we are suggesting to help support their news operations. So, there’s a bit of a symmetry to that in terms of you’ve got supports for both.

5179 And I will just note, as an aside, that the per‑station support that the ILNF provides is much greater. I think it’s more than double the per‑station support that our proposal would provide.

5180 So, I think you have a sufficient support for non‑vertically integrated companies. Or whether it’s sufficient, you have a commensurate support for non‑vertically integrated companies through the ILNF.

5181 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you. Those are my questions.

5182 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Let’s go to Vice‑Chair Theberge.

5183 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Good morning.

5184 The problem with speaking last is I had seven questions at the beginning, and now I have one, because my colleagues covered so much terrain and you answered quite well, and because the Chair is breathing down my neck.

5185 So, I will get to my last question. It will be the best, I promise.

5186 In your presentation just now, you talked about, and I quote:

“...a market that is now entirely driven by consumer choice and audience demand rather than the regulatory framework, but we continue to have clear and expansive public policy objectives in the Act and, in particular, responsibility towards specific communities or segments of the population.”

5187 So, my first sub‑question: What kinds of programming do you think are becoming harder to fund and profit from but are still crucial to achieving the goals of the Broadcasting Act? Can you give examples?

5188 My second sub‑question: When deciding what types of programming are now at risk or of particular importance, what factors should we be looking at? Is it audience size? Is it funding challenges? Is it cultural importance and how you would define this?

5189 Et, hier, Québecor semblait dire que la responsabilité d’appuyer la programmation à risque devrait essentiellement être celle de notre radiodiffuseur public. Et je me demandais si vous aviez des perspectives à ce sujet. Merci.

5190 MR. GRAHAM: Thank you. I’m going to ask Justin to talk about a couple of the examples of the programming that we know you’ve been discussing that might be difficult to fund. I think we share the perspective that many of those are appropriate mandates for the public broadcaster.

5191 So, in interests of time, I will turn right to Justin.

5192 MR. STOCKMAN: Yeah, under the category of PNI, I think that a lot of those rules were created to protect scripted content back when there was lots of that happening. I think as Sean already touched on, we are very invested in scripted content as well as documentaries, because that is what is still driving a lot of viewership.

5193 And it is a bit of an arms race. The example we always look at is Season One of Rings of Power on Amazon, which was eight episodes ‑‑ the budget of those eight episodes was larger than the entire content budget for Bell Media, including sports; English, French news; American acquisitions ‑‑ and so, we are incented to produce scripted content, documentaries at a high level. I think there are some categories, like awards shows, variety, that are harder to break even on, and they are of cultural importance, I agree with you, and I think that is the role of the public broadcaster if it is impossible to get to a break‑even position, but it is culturally relevant. It’s great that we have a public broadcaster in this market, and that’s what I would look to.

5194 M^me LANDRY : En fait, je pourrais ajouter, pour ce qui est de la programmation dite à risque, donc, on parle entre autres des PNI, moi, j’ai le goût de vous dire qu’on a à Bell Média, on a CTV, on a les chaînes spécialisées en français, en anglais. Nous sommes le groupe qui a lancé les dernières plateformes, c’est‑à‑dire Crave en français, Noovo. Donc, je pense que, en soi, c’est un signe qu’on croit à notre industrie puis on la veut en santé. Donc, c’est pour ça qu’on est ici puis on vous propose des solutions. Et pour alimenter toutes ces plateformes‑là, on doit développer différents genres pour rejoindre différents groupes parce que chaque plateforme a son ADN. Donc, oui, on va continuer à faire… Je l’ai expliqué tout à l’heure. Donc, évidemment, oui, on va continuer à protéger ces émissions‑là d’intérêt national.

5195 Donc, de ce côté‑là, pour toutes les raisons qu’on a données jusqu’à maintenant, on va continuer à investir. C’est ce qui fonctionne de toute façon, donc, si on veut retenir les gens sur nos plateformes.

5196 L’autre chose, au niveau de la nouvelle, la news, on parlait aussi, oui, on a un système à défendre. Puis il y a le numérique qui, évidemment, qui a un transfert, une migration vers le numérique au niveau des auditoires. Moi, j’ai le goût de vous dire que, au niveau de la nouvelle, actuellement, les deux tiers des Canadiens s’informent au niveau des bulletins de nouvelles soit sur la chaîne télé, soit sur le site Web de la chaîne télé. Alors, c’est une bonne nouvelle en soi.

5197 Par contre, c’est que, avant… la proportion, elle change. C’est‑à‑dire que le site Web de la chaîne linéaire prend plus de place au niveau de l’information. Alors, c’est pour ça qu’on doit continuer à alimenter nos sites Web si on ne veut pas qu’ils aillent s’informer sur d’autres sites qui… Il y en a beaucoup de sites. Est‑ce qu’ils sont fiables? Pas tous nécessairement parce qu’il y en a beaucoup sur les réseaux sociaux et sur le Web. Alors, si on veut garder une information fiable pour les Canadiens, c’est important d’alimenter nos sites d’information numériques.

5198 Le problème qu’on rencontre, c’est qu’on a des ressources qui sont limitées parce qu’on doit nourrir la plateforme linéaire à cause des obligations réglementaires. Donc, si on pouvait avoir plus de souplesse, on serait en mesure de garder les gens dans notre écosystème. Alors, voilà.

5199 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Je vous ai bien entendue, là…

5200 M^me LANDRY : Oui.

5201 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …sur la question des nouvelles parce que vous en avez parlé abondamment. Ma question portait davantage sur d’autres types de programmation.

5202 M^me LANDRY : Oui.

5203 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : On a beaucoup entendu depuis le début de l’audience les doléances probablement justifiées des producteurs indépendants de contenus pour les enfants. Alors, c’est pour ça que j’essayais de voir, de votre point de vue, comment est‑ce qu’on règle cette problématique, quel est le rôle que vous voyez en termes d’acquisition, par exemple, de contenu pour enfants dans la mesure où c’est un objectif dans la loi et c’est aussi une problématique qui a été mise de l’avant comme demandant des solutions réelles et des solutions urgentes pour un segment de la population qui est plus vulnérable, un segment de la population qui a tendance à migrer de plus en plus vers le en ligne.

5204 M^me LANDRY : Oui.

5205 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : C’est davantage là‑dessus que j’aurais aimé vous entendre. Puis c’est tout, Madame la Présidente.

5206 M^me LANDRY : Oui, en fait, bien, vous avez raison, que, soutenir la programmation jeunesse, c’est important. Par contre, je pense que les diffuseurs publics ont certainement une responsabilité dans ce sens‑là.

5207 Et, moi, j’ajouterais, il y a un segment de la population qu’on parle peu et c’est les jeunes adultes. Et les jeunes adultes, c’est nos futurs parents. Donc, c’est aussi important d’alimenter nos contenus et de les rejoindre parce que, si on perd cette génération‑là aussi, évidemment, ça va être difficile que les futurs enfants vont voir cette programmation jeunesse.

5208 Alors, donc, moi, je vous dirais qu’il y a plusieurs groupes de la population dont on doit rejoindre. Les jeunes adultes en font partie si on veut garder justement nos futurs jeunes dans l’écosystème, mais que la programmation jeunesse devrait être certainement un mandat où les diffuseurs publics devraient assumer.

5209 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm not going to lie; I was reaching for my Post‑it notes.

5210 Perhaps I could just ask one final question, almost sort of a wrap‑up before we turn things back over to you.

5211 You’ve talked a lot about flexibility. You talked about that this morning. You talked about the spirit of flexibility. Obviously this is a point that has been made by many intervenors; in fact, I believe that Netflix mentioned flexibility over 50 times in their written submission.

5212 So, my question is, if we apply flexibility, to you does that mean across the system? So, would that include foreign streamers? And if so, how do we ensure the public policy goals in the Act ‑‑ so, the creation and broadcast of ‑‑ you know, we talked a lot about news ‑‑ Indigenous content, content for racialized communities? Could you talk a little bit about that?

5213 MR. GRAHAM: Yes, and we'll try to get the balance right between giving you a proper answer and not going on too long.

5214 I think it starts as it always does with the Commission ‑‑ you have to look at the evidence for each of the individual instances of flexibility you’re being asked to provide. We’ve gone through in detail how we exceed our obligations in many of the areas where we’re asking to have some of the flexibility provided and in areas where we’re proposing to maintain the existing obligations.

5215 So, I think the way you get comfortable in our case, that the public policy objectives of the Act will continue to be met, is by looking at the fact that we exceed our obligations already today, and we have explained why, and you can make a judgment about whether we have convinced you of those rationales and that they will continue to apply, and all the more so as the world evolves.

5216 In the case of the foreign streamers, it’s a bit of a different situation in that, despite their claim that the whole purpose of the amendments to the Broadcasting Act is to codify what they already do. I don’t think anyone thinks that Parliament and the Commission has gone to all this trouble for that limited purpose. It’s to ensure that they do contribute to the policy objectives of the Act. And you’ll have to make a judgment about whether they’ve convinced you that the flexibility they are requesting will result in them making that contribution to the policy objectives of the Act, and I think the rules could be different theoretically between the two, depending on the actual evidence before the Commission.

5217 So, we’re not opposed to flexibility for anybody in the system, to the extent that it’s driven by eliminating regulatory quotas that are not serving well the objectives of the Act. But if ‘flexibility’ is another word for lesser commitment or not contributing, then I don’t think it would be well‑served for your objectives or consistent with the Act to provide that type of flexibility. So, there’s a bit of an evidence base ‑‑ you know, a what do you mean by ‘flexibility’ element to it.

5218 I’ll stop there. I think that’s our high‑level perspective.

5219 MR. COHAN: Can I simply just add, in the same vein, that you have two very different starting points. These are different goalposts. When Mark talks about lesser commitment, the requirements are so far different mathematically or quantitatively from the streamers versus us ‑‑ and, to be fair, they are quibbling with their much lower requirements for starters. So, I think, while I normally would bristle when we’d say, ‘Oh, we should treat these differently,’ it’s a very different starting point, a very different lens. If we were looking at the same commitments across the board, requirements across the board, then perhaps I think we’d have a slightly different answer around flexibility.

5220 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that. Hopefully that is a nice segue to BCE’s closing remarks.

5221 MR. GRAHAM: It is, thank you. And thanks very much for being so generous with the time with us.

5222 I have two things ‑‑ one promise and one short reflection. The promise we managed to avoid getting into statutory interpretation, which spared you hearing me talk about Elmer A. Driedger, and so the promise is we will address that at a subsequent phase of the proceeding.

5223 And the reflection is, I’ve been thinking over the past week a bit about the time 11 years ago I sat, I think, in the back corner of this room, taking notes when there was what I would characterize as a “spirited” exchange between one of the large foreign streamers and the Panel about whether they should receive special treatment in the production of some basic data to the Commission.

5224 It’s clear the Government, the Commission, and stakeholders have come a long way in those 11 years in terms of constructive engagement on modernizing and recalibrating the regulatory framework to reflect the modern environment. Obviously, you’ve taken the initial step of imposing a baseline contribution requirement for foreign streamers, and this is the moment when you can take the corresponding step of providing Canadian broadcasters with the flexibility and relief from rules that are holding them back in the full achievement of the objectives of the Act, and that can allow us to do what we’ve said over and over to you today we want to do, which is use our expertise and investment, and our outsized contribution to Canadian content, to compete and succeed effectively in a highly competitive global market. And by doing that, we can sort of have the rising tide lift all boats and achieve the objectives that the Act has set out to achieve.

5225 So, thank you very much again for the time and for your thoughtful questions, and we appreciate the opportunity to be here.

5226 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

5227 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now take a ten‑minute break and be back at 10:35.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 23

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 38

5228 THE SECRETARY: We will now begin, with the presentation from the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, ACTRA National. Please introduce yourself, and you may being.

Présentation

5229 MS. NOBLE: Hi, I am Eleanor Noble. I am the ACTRA National President.

5230 THE SECRETARY: Just one second. Marie, we cannot hear you in the room.

‑‑‑ Discussion officieuse

5231 THE SECRETARY: You can introduce yourself, please.

5232 MS. KELLY: Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. It’s great to be here. I am Marie Kelly. I am the very proud National Executive Director for ACTRA.

5233 MS. NOBLE: Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of more than 30,000 members of ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists.

5234 ACTRA is the national union of professional performers in recorded media in Canada.

5235 Our remarks today come at a prescient moment for Canada’s audiovisual sector. Canadian performers, like myself, find ourselves at an existential crossroad, with threats around every corner to our livelihood. The greatest threat has been the unregulated advance of Artificial Intelligence, AI.

5236 Now, in addition to that, Canadian performers are faced with the ongoing changes in the film and television sector following pressures from the current United States administration.

5237 These challenges are destabilizing the entire audiovisual landscape in North America, affecting the foreign service industry productions here in Canada, which in turn affects all those who work in our industry on both sides of the border.

5238 While we have had a good partnership and a thriving service industry, this disruption highlights a major issue in this country: there simply does not exist enough domestic production in Canada to sustain our performers, allowing us to earn a living here. Canadian performers want to work in Canada, telling Canadian stories, and we are the best at doing that.

5239 It is critical that the CRTC work to implement the policies that will help build a strong Canadian domestic industry. We need to safeguard an environment where performers have opportunities and success in our own country.

5240 In fact, the CRTC has an obligation to create an environment that maximizes Canadian workers and human resources in our industry, in accordance with section 9 of the Minister’s policy direction. It is vital Canadian performers remain central to the Commission’s considerations in this. We are, after all, a key part of the ecosystem that makes up the industry in Canada.

5241 Our message is simple: Without Canadian performers, we cannot tell Canadian stories. Yet, this isn’t reflected in the Commission’s proposed new points system. With the new system, the addition of five new roles without similarly amending the points accorded to performers, diminishes our proportional value.

5242 ACTRA performers are what make Canadian stories recognizable for audiences. And it is thanks to ACTRA performers that Canadians identify and celebrate Canadian content. The Commission’s own public opinion research supports this fact. If the goal is to promote Canadian content, we cannot decentralize the most easily accessible and recognizable component of any production ‑‑ the performer. Canadians love to see other Canadians on screen.

5243 This is why ACTRA has long advocated for a Star System, similar to the one in Quebec, to highlight the highest paid Canadian performers in any production. We therefore strongly urge the Commission to allocate two points each for the first and second lead performers, similar to showrunners, directors, and screenwriters.

5244 This brings us to the role the CRTC must continue to play on PNI and CPE. Based on the last review of the Status of the Artist Act, ACTRA submits that the CRTC has an obligation to require that recipients of public funding adhere to the terms and conditions of the relevant collective agreements negotiated with unions and guilds. To ensure that certified productions are held accountable to this, the CRTC must demand regular audits and reporting.

5245 In the CRTC’s public opinion research, Canadians ranked the creation of Canadian jobs in the entertainment industry as the highest priority for the CRTC, more than highlighting Canadian culture. Therefore, it is essential to make maximum use of Canadian creative human resources by supporting well‑paid Canadian jobs.

5246 In fact, these very words are entrenched in the Broadcasting Act, that “each Canadian broadcasting undertaking shall employ and make maximum use . . . of Canadian creative and ... human resources.” To not center this obligation in these proceedings runs counter to the very spirit and text of the law.

5247 Which brings us to the impact of Artificial Intelligence, which threatens performer’s jobs if not appropriately regulated. The use of AI, including in dubbing and background performances, must disqualify productions from certification by the CRTC. Under no circumstance should AI‑generated material ever be considered Canadian content. Otherwise, it is a betrayal to our performers, who have already seen their moral rights violated and job opportunities limited by AI. With widespread use of AI for dubbing, we urge the Commission to work to protect the livelihoods of Canadian performers. Dubbing is an essential component of work for Canadian ACTRA performers and cannot be undermined.

5248 In closing, it is only with an updated definition of Canadian content ‑‑ one which takes into account the contributions of performers, alongside appropriate protections for Canadian actors  ‑‑ that we will finally have created a broadcasting system where we are standing up not only for Canadian performers, but for Canada’s creative industries and culture as a whole.

5249 We thank you and are happy to address any questions.

5250 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to ACTRA for being here with us this morning, and bringing the views of your over 30,000 members. We really appreciate your participation.

5251 I will turn things over to Commissioner Paquette to start the questioning for the Commission. Thank you.

5252 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you. Hello, Ms. Noble and Ms. Kelly. Thank you for your participation.

5253 You say that it’s our responsibility to maximize Canadian performers’ opportunities and that this is not reflected in the points system that we propose. What are you views on the online streamers' position that the Commission‑proposed point system is too narrow, not appropriate for the current reality of the production, and unsuitable to the business model of foreign online streaming services?

5254 MS. KELLY: Thank you for that question. I think you'll find that our viewpoint on this is extremely different from the streamers.

5255 And I just want to go back to the point system as it has existed where there was 10 points. In the 10‑point system, you had to have six points in order to achieve the Canadian content level. And in that, there was two points that were for performers. That's 20 per cent of the points that are available.

5256 And now, moving to a 15‑point system where you have to get nine out of 15, I understand that the goal there is to make it sort of easier to qualify. But I think it's an unintended ‑‑ I hope it's an unintended consequence that in making it easier to qualify, we haven't erroneously downgraded performers. And we say that because now, out of the 15‑point system, we are still only two points. So rather than being 20 per cent of the allotment, we are now just above 13 per cent of the allotment. So the value that performers are seeing in the ecosystem of defining Canadian content is significantly reduced.

5257 What we would say is that you have to look at the role of performers in the entire ecosystem of productions, whether they're film or TV series, et cetera. You have to look at what role do they play. And we say this: we say that it would be more appropriate to give actors/performers two points for the first and two points for the second. That would give us just above the 20 per cent that we originally had in the ecosystem.

5258 I say to the streamers this: globally, the production end of film and TV understands the value of actors. They understand the value of actors because when they are promoting their productions, who do they push forward onto talk shows? Who do they want using all of their social media in order to promote the film or the TV series? It's performers. The ecosystem understands the value that performers bring to driving in audiences. And so we would say to the streamers the value of Canadian performers has to be the same as you value other performers around the globe in the ecosystem.

5259 So from our perspective, we had an issue already, and we think it was wrong‑headed not giving performers more value in the value chain for Canadian content. But we think the flaw is accentuated in the new system.

5260 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So I understand that you are open to flexibility but without reducing the importance of the performers in the definition. Did I understand it right?

5261 MS. KELLY: Yeah, and we would ‑‑ yes, I would say, rather than not reducing, but you know, if you give two points each, it gives us slightly a little bit more in a percentage‑wise. But we would say two points for each, the first and second, would be more appropriate in the new regime of the point system.

5262 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you. I understand.

5263 Now, you referred to the French market star system. You referred to it in your presentation, and mentioned that it should be a goal. And you suggest to this end that marketing material, trailers, other promotional content may be considered as a contribution to the ecosystem. I have to say I am in fact quite proud of the little ecosystem, the little star system that we have in Quebec. But this system, this star system has been built under the current regulation without any promotion or marketing requirements. So why do you think it is the Commission's role to support a star system in Canada?

5264 MS. KELLY: So we would start with the point system, right, elevating the role of performers in Canadian content. So that is part of underpinning a star system is elevating actors to the level that they should be in when you're looking at whether it's Canadian content.

5265 I was listening to the presentation just before us, and I heard the conversation about discoverability and visibility, and we agree that there should be discoverability and visibility. But then I think about, you know, Ryan Gosling, Ryan Reynolds, Donald Sutherland, Mike Myers, you know, Keanu Reeves, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara; right? You don't have to put in a system that requires discoverability for those actors. Those are all Canadian actors who will bring discoverability to a production.

5266 And so for us, while we agree with assisting the Canadian system by having discoverability and visibility, we are also saying there is something very wrong when we don't promote actors in a variety of ways. And yes, I agree that it is not only the job of the CRTC to build a star system. But we're saying you have a leg in this three‑legged stool in doing that. And it's the point system for us that elevate performers in the role that they have.

5267 You know, Canadians, they see Yannick Bisson, and I think the first thing, if you had to do sort of an association, the first thing people would say if he came on the screen was Murdoch Mysteries. And then they'd say, Oh yeah, that's Yannick Bisson.

5268 So we have Canadian performers that have that kind of bandwidth and that have that ability, but we don't promote it enough. And we need to do that. And having the CRTC take that into consideration when we're talking about a point system is one step in many steps that need to be taken to help us promote actors in this country.

5269 MS. NOBLE: And could I just add to that as well? So we're also precarious workers, gig workers. And increasing point system would give more incentive in what we're talking about in building a star system around that, and supporting that helps support that, gives us incentive to be able to stay here and earn a livelihood here.

5270 What happens is in the list of names that Marie just listed off, they've become big in LA, and then we claim them back as Canadians. But we aren't building that in Canada. And that is a strong desire for performers across this country is that they want to have a name and be recognizable in this country in Canadian content, telling Canadian stories as Canadian performers, and not have to pack our bags up as soon as we've done theatre school and ship ourselves out to LA to try to make it.

5271 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And you're talking about the point system, but I was under the impression that your recommendation was to go as far as to extend promotions, expenses as to CPE, to qualify as Canadian programming expenditure. Is that correct? Are you going that far? And can you give us an example of how would it work if you're going this way?

5272 MS. KELLY: I don't think we're looking to extend the point system into those kinds of areas. I think we were just advising, right, that there's a lot of different legs on the stool of promoting performers in this country. I don't think we would want to further water down the point system by adding yet another category. We were just explaining how there are many different ways to approach the promotion of performers.

5273 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you. Now, you recommend that the CRTC dedicate financing to a performer development fund. Can you tell us more about this fund, how it would work, who would administer it, what level of financing would be needed?

5274 MS. NOBLE: I think we'll have to back to you on that, the development fund.

5275 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

5276 MS. NOBLE: We can get back to you on that.

5277 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, so we'll come back with maybe an undertaking in this regard.

5278 And I have two last questions on the topic of artificial intelligence. You mentioned that the use of artificial intelligence as a tool may be acceptable, but the generation of content by artificial intelligence, including the primary use of artificial intelligence for the creation of performances such as background performers, must be disqualified for the purpose of content certification. Can you explain and tell us more on what kind of ‑‑ like this use of primary use of artificial intelligence for the creation of performance, can you give us a few examples of how this can be used in a production? And are there more other kinds of uses that should be prohibited, in your point of view?

5279 MS. KELLY: Yeah, so often people think that ACTRA or other unions are against artificial intelligence, and that's just not so. We understand that the industry has used AI for many, many years. They've used it in enhancing performances. To give you an example, you know, a stunt performer who's doing a specific stunt, they may enhance it with artificial intelligence for it to look more dramatic, but it keeps the performer safer in doing what they're doing. So there are lots of appropriate uses for AI. So we are not opposed to AI, and that's what we were trying to get across in our submissions.

5280 But we are opposed to where the AI is generating performances that they should not be something that is categorized as giving them a point towards Canadian content. We know that globally there's lots of countries looking at AI. We know the US is leading on lots of these things. It was a part of the saga after negotiations a couple of years ago. It was certainly a big part of the negotiations we had with the industry here in Canada at the end of last year.

5281 So it's really important that we also recognize that AI should not take over the jobs of the creators in the ecosystem that we're in, and we should not treat AI‑generated performers as if they are a Canadian actor. That is not the route we want to go.

5282 You can see when it comes to copyright there are many situations in which the regulators have ruled that copyright ‑‑ AI‑generated material is not copyrightable. All of that is to protect the human element of the performance that is being had. And so I think that was a point we wanted to make is there is a distinguishing feature between using AI to assist in the performance and one to transpose the performer.

5283 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And are there protections that are currently embedded in ACTRA's collective agreement in this regard? And are they adequate protection that can be ‑‑ are there adequate protections that can be negotiated between the guild and the producers?

5284 MS. KELLY: So, the answer to that is yes, there are protections in our collective agreement, but I think we all recognize that the collective agreement is only one half of the protections for I'll talk about performers in this instance. It's only one half of the protection for the performers. We also need our government to step up to also provide protection.

5285 So for example, you'll see lots happening in the US when you go from state to state talking about deep fakes. One of the things we're really concerned about as ACTRA is the fact that there is no protection right now in Canada against there being deep fakes. And you can appreciate someone who is a performer, much like the politician or a sports athlete, all of those are at a higher level subject to more risk of having deep fakes performed because they're well known.

5286 And for actors, it is their brand. I say this all the time, but you see Eleanor sitting before you. She caretakes her brand because that's what gets her the next gig. And if there is an AI‑generated version of Eleanor that hits the Internet that people see, they won't know the difference nowadays that it's AI‑generated. And it can ruin her career, ruin her brand in an instant.

5287 So while we've done our best, and while I'm proud of what we are able to achieve in our last round of collective bargaining around AI, it can only protect the ‑‑ I'll talk about actors ‑‑ actors if we have our government step up with additional protections that not only actors need but Canadian citizens need.

5288 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you. I have no more questions.

5289 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Let's go to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

5290 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Good morning, thank you for being here. I have two questions.

5291 Yesterday, you probably heard that there was a lot of discussion about developing talent and retaining talent in Canada. And some intervenors actually suggested that for certain positions a residency requirement be added to the definition as a means to develop and retain talent in Canada. So I was wondering if you had views on that particular proposal, and furthermore, whether you thought that training and talent development should be included as a type of expenditure expected from online streamers.

5292 MS. KELLY: Let me go first to residency. Sorry, I'm just taking some notes. On the issue of residency, I can tell you that ACTRA, for membership, we do have our own rules around Canadian citizenship and residency for ACTRA members who would carry an ACTRA card. So we do think residency is an important element of defining Canadian performers. And so I think that is something that we'd be willing to look into and to have more conversation about.

5293 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: I think that the suggestion was not so much residency from an immigration point of view, but actually having Canadians living and working in Canada. The recommendation was made in respect to writers, but I was wondering whether you had views. I think their point ‑‑ and I don't want to interpret what they're saying, but I will try a little bit ‑‑ is it's easy for some writers to feel they need to go to LA to work. Right? What we need to do is to keep them in Canada so we can develop, grow the talent in Canada. So that's how they pitched the residency requirement attached to specific positions in the definition.

5294 MS. NOBLE: Yeah, I was listening. I heard that. And they have a similar incentive to us, right, so if there is no incentive to stay here, and they have to move out of country, and then we're just hiring them back in here through that venue, I believe we share a similar point. It's not that we want to stop people from being able to expand in their career, but it would be important to have something that creates notoriety here and that they're not having to go somewhere else to create the notoriety there just to come back here to work, so.

5295 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: But would that need to be reflected in the definition? Like to be able to qualify as a Canadian performer, Canadian lead, not only you need to be Canadian, but you need to pay taxes in Canada. That's what they were putting forward, so I'm just trying to get a sense as to whether you've got views on that particular recommendation coming from the Writers Guild. And they were talking about the position of writers ‑‑

5296 MS. NOBLE: Yeah.

5297 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ but I'm applying it to the position of your membership.

5298 MS. KELLY: So, I think when it comes to our members, our members want to work on both sides of the border. You know, they want to be able to go where the work takes them. They're very fluid in Canada and moving, you know, to productions right across. So I don't think we would want to put up any barrier that allows Canadian performers ‑‑ if it's a Canadian performer who's made it big in the US, I don't think that we should penalize them, you know, for making it big in the US. And if they want to come back to Canada and to work on Canadian productions, that is going to promote the Canadian production. So I'm not sure we would be exactly aligned with the issue that the writers are speaking about.

5299 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: All right, thank you. Thank you very much.

5300 One last question. You recommend equitable CPE requirements for foreign online services based on Canadian revenue and capacity to contribute. Giving different views on what is equitable ‑‑ and, you know, we had that conversation with the Motion Pictures of America, who believe that global players should not contribute like Canadian broadcasters ‑‑ I was wondering how you define “equitable,” and how it would work in practice.

5301 MS. KELLY: So, I guess from our perspective is that the average rate for traditional broadcasters is 30 per cent, and so we think that's a fair level to set as a minimum for CPE contributions. I think when it comes to the streamers, all we're talking about is the amount of revenue they receive here in Canada. We're not talking about their global revenue; we are talking about Canadian revenue. And I think it's important for them to contribute in the same fashion and in the same way that we expect our traditional broadcasters to contribute.

5302 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: All right. And I just want to go back to my original question, because it had two elements, and I want to give you an opportunity to respond to this suggestion that perhaps training and talent development should be included in the type of expenditures expected from online streamers.

5303 MS. KELLY: I think that's wonderful. I think, you know, we're at a stage where we want to make sure that we are promoting Canadian writers, directors, performers. You know, we're trying to create a system in which we are elevating Canadian productions around the globe. And I think anything we can do to help us to get to that end is an important thing.

5304 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: The reason I'm asking is because some intervenors are actually saying that, you know, online streamers should essentially fund acquisition of programs, not necessarily fund different types of endeavours such as training or creating programs through partnerships, et cetera. So thank you for clarifying your position on this.

5305 That's all, Madam Chair.

5306 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much. So at this stage, we'd like to turn things back over to you for any concluding thoughts.

5307 MS. NOBLE: Great, thank you. We really appreciate the time we've had here, and we'd like to thank the Commission for this opportunity to speak on behalf of ACTRA performers.

5308 We once again urge the CRTC to ensure that the changes we make to our broadcasting regime are aimed at keeping Canadian actor/performers on Canadian screens. And as we've said, actors are an unquestionable and integral part of the equation in defining and promoting Canadian content. It would be a disservice not only to our sector but to our Canadian audiences if we do not consider the value Canadian performers bring to our cultural identity.

5309 Now, more than ever, it is critical to put our elbows up for Canada's creative industry. For too long, Canadian performers have had to leave Canada to find success, and Canada has had to rely on foreign production, mainly American studios and media giants, to keep our industry going here. Instead of a Hollywood success story, let's make a Canadian success story. Let's make sure that the talented and diverse performers we have here in this country are not only protected but are able to stay here and find the recognition and success they deserve in Canada.

5310 We've said it before, and we'll say it again: it's our time to shine, not only in Canada, but on the global stage as well. Let's not only buy Canadian, let's watch Canadian and let's keep that Canadian pride going. Thank you so much.

5311 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to ACTRA for being here with us in person and virtually today.

5312 MS. NOBLE: Thank you.

5313 MS. KELLY: Thank you.

5314 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now connect to the next participants, TLN Media Group. Perfect. Thank you very much for being here. Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

5315 MR. DI FELICE: Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, Members of the Commission, Commission staff, good morning. My name is Aldo Di Felice, president of TLN Media Group Inc. With me today are Agatha Pezzi, senior vice‑president of Productions and Partnerships at TLN and head of TLN Studios, and Kevin Goldstein, our regulatory counsel. Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.

5316 TLN Media Group is a Canadian immigrant‑owned and multiculturally focused independent media company. In addition to our flagship discretionary service TLN Telelatino, we operate Canada's leading ethnic‑language TV channels, including Univision Canada in Spanish, Mediaset Italia‑Canada, TGCOM24 in Italian, and the only Italian‑ and Spanish‑language kids' channels in Canada, Telebimbi and Telenin?os. We also offer Spanish‑ and English‑language European sports and entertainment channels.

5317 As a multicultural content leader, TLN selects, curates, produces, and commissions culturally significant content across television and digital platforms. Our in‑house production division, TLN Studios, delivers original content that is deeply reflective of Canada's diversity in ownership, creative teams, and subject matter.?

5318 We are here today to address how the Commission’s proposed changes to the definition of “Canadian program” could unintentionally harm ethnocultural producers and broadcasters at the very moment when new legislation finally recognizes their essential role in Canada’s broadcasting system.

5319 The proposed shift from a 10‑point to a 15‑point certification model may offer more flexibility in theory, but in practice it could make it harder for multicultural and ethnic programs to qualify as Canadian. Productions like ours and those of the independent producers we work with often earn six to eight points, not due to lack of Canadian involvement, but because of the formats and structures we use which differ from mainstream models.

5320 Many of the new qualifying roles proposed in the 15‑point system are not typically present in our productions. Under the new model, these programs would be effectively penalized and potentially disqualified from Canadian status despite being created by Canadian producers and serving Canadian audiences.

5321 We understand the desire to support new forms of production, including those involving foreign streamers. However, doing so should not come at the expense of historically recognized Canadian programming from ethnocultural producers. To address this, we propose that such programs be permitted to continue using the six out of 10‑point model. Alternatively, productions with budgets of $500,000 or less should qualify if 60 percent of the key creative roles are filled by Canadians. Either solution maintains access and fairness for multicultural creators. In addition, TMG supports maintaining the Commission’s current policy that any production certified as Canadian by CAVCO will also be considered Canadian for CRTC purposes.

5322 When we appeared before you in November 2023 with the Canadian Ethnocultural Media Coalition, we emphasized that true diversity in broadcasting goes beyond onscreen representation. The Broadcasting Act, as amended, and the 2023 Policy Direction clearly mandate that the Canadian broadcasting system must support both the production and the ownership and control of broadcasting undertakings by Canadians from diverse ethnocultural backgrounds.

5323 This principle is not aspirational; it is now law. Therefore, ethnic programming produced by ethnoculturally Canadian creators must also be destined for distribution on ethnic channels that are owned and controlled by ethnoculturally diverse Canadians. Production and distribution are inseparable. A complete expression of Canadian ethnocultural programming must reflect who makes it, who broadcasts it, and who it serves.

5324 Certification of Canadian content must explicitly recognize this legislative imperative. It is not enough to look solely at the roles on set or the location of shooting. To truly implement the Act’s objectives, the system must ensure that productions created by ethnocultural Canadians for ethnocultural audiences are carried on appropriate ethnocultural services, ones that are themselves reflective of that ownership and control.

5325 Beyond certification criteria, there remains a serious concern around funding. The Canada Media Fund’s Diverse Languages Program is the only dedicated funding stream for content in languages other than English or French and its resources are extremely limited. Barely one percent of the CMF’s budget is allocated to the Diverse Languages Program. And at a time when the Broadcast Act has focused on the need for ethnic content, the CMF is actually reducing its commitments to this area. This trend contradicts the policy goal of supporting a truly multicultural Canadian broadcast system.

5326 As the Commission considers the future contributions of online undertakings and BDUs, we urge you to embed this principle at every level. Whether through CMF allocation, certification rules or funding eligibility, Canadian status must depend not just on who creates the content, but also on who it is made for and how it reaches those communities. And that means protecting and supporting the viability of ethnic owned and controlled Canadian ethnocultural broadcasters.

5327 In closing, we would like to thank the Commission for this opportunity. TLN Media Group remains committed to building an inclusive, sustainable and representative broadcasting system that empowers diverse voices and reflects the full spectrum of Canadian identity.

5328 We welcome your questions.

5329 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to TLN Media Group for your written submissions. Thank you for participating at the hearing this morning.

5330 I know that we have a number of questions, so I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo to jump right in. Thank you.

5331 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. Thank you so much for your presentation and for being here today. We appreciate it.

5332 I wanted to start off with points, the point system. You have concerns about the Commission’s proposal of changing the point system to nine out of 15 points, saying it’ll cause issues for services in the ethnic content space. So what is the state of ethnic programming in Canada and are there large ethnic content producers in Canada who would benefit from more flexibility in the system and, if so, how can we encourage international partnerships for these types of production?

5333 MS. PEZZI: Hello. I’d like to give an example of how ‑‑ and demonstrate how our point system works currently and how it would work the Commission’s new 15‑point structure on some of our recent productions. TLN Studios produces original content in a variety of genres and in a variety of languages, all programs of national interest that currently achieve between six and eight points on the current model of Canadian program certification.

5334 In the newly‑proposed system of 15 points, these productions would not achieve the minimum of nine points, and I’m speaking about Canadian stories. These are stories that showcase multicultural Canadians and explore diverse themes that reflect and resonate with our multicultural communities, productions such as our biopic documentaries that spotlight diverse Canadians who are making a difference and creating lasting impacts on all aspects of Canadian society. Let me share some examples.

5335 Our Italian language project, Il ritmo della vita: la storia di Gianluigi Bisleri, or The Rhythm of Life, the Journey of Dr. Bisleri, which follows a story of an internationally renounced Italian‑Canadian heart surgeon whose pioneering minimally‑invasive techniques are reshaping cardiovascular care and leaving an impact on Canadian medicine or our Spanish language documentary, Claudia Bernal: La Artista Improbable, or Claudia Bernal: The Unlikely Artist. This tells the story of Montreal‑based Colombian‑Canada multi‑disciplinary artist whose working‑class background prevented her from pursuing her dream of becoming an artist in her homeland of Columbia but who has found both her artistic career and her voice in Canada or Folklórica, our Spanish language documentary that traces the compelling journey of Lourdes Liss. This is a remarkable woman whose vibrant dance landscape has profoundly influenced the Canadian multi‑cultural scene. Born in an Indigenous Mexican village, today Lourdes brings the mesmerizing rhythms of Mexican folklore dance to the bustling city of Vancouver, Canada.

5336 One of our thematic documentaries such as our Italian language Caduti: La Storia dei Lavoratori Italiani in Canada, or Fallen: The Stories of Italian Workers in Canada uncovers the story of more than 3,000 and counting workers who have died in the job in Canada while helping to build our nation. This documentary pays tribute to their considerable sacrifices and significant contributions and highlights critical lessons in workplace safety.

5337 I can go on and on. One of our original kids’ series, What the Science?, explores the world of science in all its wonder both in and out of the classroom or our upcoming TV concert special featuring Cuban, Canadian and Latin Grammy award‑winning jazz pianist Hilario Dúran.

5338 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I'm going to ‑‑ I’m sorry. Thank you. The information that you’re giving is really, really rich. I really, really appreciate it. Thank you.

5339 I just want to make sure that we get some time in for some of the other questions.

5340 I’m just going to let you finish and then I wanted ‑‑

5341 MS. PEZZI: Sure.

5342 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO:  ‑‑ to just move on to another question about the point system.

5343 Thank you.

5344 MS. PEZZI: Sure.

5345 So I just was going to say, all of these projects would not achieve the nine points under a new 15‑point system even though all the key creative positions are filled by Canadians, so we agree with the current system that allows for productions that do not use some key creative positions to meet the six‑point minimum to still be granted Canadian certification provided that Canadians fill all key creative roles and also we agree with the Commission’s preliminary review which aligns with this.

5346 Alternatively, productions with budgets of 500,000 or less should qualify if 60 percent of key creative roles are filled by Canadians. In other words, exceptions should be maintained depending on budgets and if the positions do not actually exist.

5347 Thank you.

5348 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Well, you actually touched on my next question, but because it was part of the question previously, I’m going to ask it in a different way so that we can actually just focus on that and maybe flesh it out a little bit more.

5349 You say productions below a certain dollar threshold that are unable to meet nine points should still qualify for Canadian certification if just 60 percent of their key creative positions are filled by Canadians. In its Notice of Consultation, the Commission’s preliminary view, as you’re aware, was that in these cases, all key creative positions must be Canadian so the production, therefore, earns a so‑called perfect score. So this is the current requirement in place based on the six‑point minimum.

5350 Can you elaborate on why you do not think this would be a positive measure for smaller productions and can you give examples of small ethnic productions where certain key creative position roles are often filled by non‑Canadians?

5351 MR. DI FELICE: I can say a few words about this, although Agatha is the expert on TLN Studio’s productions activities.

5352 Low‑budget productions for us are synonymous with ethnic production because all of the ‑‑ I think most or all of the productions that Agatha just spoke about, and I know that most of our productions, would be considered low budget in the mainstream world. So when we talk about budgets of 500,000 or less, many times our productions are within that range, and so ethnic productions don’t necessarily have all of the key creative roles allocated within them. They might not have a costume designer, for instance.

5353 And we don’t want to non‑Canadianize these productions that ethnic producers make merely because they don’t fit the mainstream structure. The expansion, I think, exacerbates the issue because there are additional roles that have been created that also aren’t necessarily existing in ethnic low‑budget productions.

5354 So I think Agatha knows the details of those productions, but when it comes to ethnic production, it’s generally low budget, not necessarily low quality, but that’s one of the issues.

5355 The other issue that I think you touched upon earlier ‑‑ just earlier is how can we encourage collaborations with international producers when it comes to ethnic content produced in Canada.

5356 I think one of the issues is access to some kind of proportional level of funding support for such projects, whether they’re official or unofficial coproductions, and that doesn’t exist right now.

5357 The Diverse Languages Program has limited resources, number one, but also very hard caps that are low on the actual amount of money that can be spent on individual productions and the support that individual productions would receive in order to, I think, better distribute the very scarce resources across more productions.

5358 That, in essence, I can tell you, over my almost 30 years in multi‑cultural broadcasting has essentially ghettoized ethnic content in Canada because it is by force ‑‑ not by choice, but by force, forced to work with smaller financial resources, smaller budgets and limited support.

5359 That’s something that should change, and it’s taken over 30 years for us to successfully lobby Parliament both at the Heritage level and the Senate level ‑‑ the Heritage Committee level and the Senate level, for the changes to the Broadcasting Act that we’ve underlined in our presentation.

5360 Those changes make it clear that the production of ethnic content by ethnic producers with destined for ethnic owned channels in Canada is a priority of the broadcast system. Granted, it’s one of many priorities, but it has not been relegated to secondary status or tertiary status. It is of equal priority with the attention being paid to priorities to the broader diverse universe of racialized communities.

5361 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. I just want to jump in.

5362 You mentioned a lot of very interesting priorities, not the least of which is you touched on language, right. How gas the rise of streaming services impacted the competitive environment for foreign language materials in Canada and what are the benefits of having a service like TLN instead of having foreign streamers providing such content?

5363 MR. DI FELICE: So it's a double‑edged sword. When it comes to streaming services, one thing that has been noticed in terms of viewing trends is that there’s an increasing openness among mainstream viewers and people who are consuming content in the language of comfort, in a third language, to watching original foreign language content, non‑English, non‑French content with subtitles.

5364 So number one, there’s that increasing openness to discovering a world of content outside of the, in the case of English language Canada, English language original content, but on the flip side for us, for example, some of the best Italian or Spanish language programs now are first scooped up by streamers, sometimes on an international basis.

5365 So we often get suggestions from people who are talking to their friends and relatives in Latin America or in Italy or in Portugal, and they say, “Hey, you should really get this series for Canada”.

5366 And that series is ‑‑ if it’s high profile enough that they’ve called us about it, it’s usually gone to a streamer and usually on a multi ‑‑ almost always on a multi‑territory basis, so it’s made it more difficult for us to get the best content on our channels.

5367 On the other hand, what is the benefit of having the Canadian broadcasters, essentially, I think the question that you’ve asked me.

5368 So I think they’re clear. There’s the industrial component of actually having Canadian‑based employment and taxes paid in Canada. There’s the cultural component of actually having Canadian stories told.

5369 Our content as a whole supports both the foreign language content and foreign produced content that we produce for our audiences, but also supports our being able to make Canadian content. And our Canadian content consists not only of the programs of national interest that Agatha underline, of which, over the past 15 years, I should add, TLN has been the most prolific producer of programs of national interest in languages other than English or French than anyone else in Canada. I think that’s a little recognized fact.

5370 So having the Canadian broadcaster allows the production, facilitates the production of programs of national interest made in Canada for Canadian audiences with international distribution capability, which we have under the TLN Studios banner, and a different type of content, the more disposable everyday content that we do on an everyday basis, community based content.

5371 So our TLN Connects segments, which are broadcast daily on our channels, our “Hola News” segments in Spanish that are broadcast daily on our Spanish channels, our “Nota Bene” segments that are produced daily and broadcast daily on our Italian channels. This content, news and information, community events and happenings, notable personalities, that is the content that’s supported by having a Canadian channel.

5372 There are many, many foreign services in the languages that we serve that are authorized for distribution and ‑‑

5373 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you.

5374 MR. DI FELICE:  ‑‑ actually carried in Canada.

5375 Those services do not have a Canadian focus.

5376 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. You answered my question and you answered it very well.

5377 Thank you. I have no more questions. I’m going to hand it back to the Chair because I know my colleagues do.

5378 Thank you.

5379 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

5380 And I will hand things over to the Vice‑Chair.

5381 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Grazie mille. Buongiorno a tutti. I needed to put a little bit of Italian in this, in my questions, just to show off.

5382 So over the last few days, some intervenors such as the NFB and Reelworld have suggested the inclusion of Canadian cultural elements to the definition, while other intervenors have argued that including cultural elements is simply to object ‑‑ too subjective given the vast diversity of the makeup of our country. Alternatively, we had a panel yesterday suggesting that the Commission add a diversity criteria just like the UK has.

5383 Can you please tell us about what you think of including Canadian cultural elements or a UK inspired diversity criteria within the definition?

5384 MR. DI FELICE: I think we can maybe each take a swing at this question, Agatha and I. I can go first.

5385 First of all, I did read a review of that presentation. I haven’t read the ‑‑ or watched the entire presentation so I have a limited understanding of what is meant by cultural elements, but the review I read of the presentation didn’t seem to define exactly what cultural elements were going to be required in order ‑‑ this is all in the context of certifying a piece of content as either Canadian or not Canadian.

5386 So I found it problematic from the point of view of it being vague and undefined and maybe it is better defined. I think ‑‑

5387 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: I don't want to put you on the spot. If you want to think about it, maybe you would agree to taking this as an undertaking and come back to us ‑‑

5388 MR. DI FELICE: Sure. I’m not sure if ‑‑

5389 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ with views on ‑‑

5390 MR. DI FELICE:  ‑‑ Agatha has anything to add.

5391 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ on that idea or those two scenarios, one being added cultural element to the definition or, alternatively, a diversity criteria to the definition.

5392 MR. DI FELICE: And when it comes to diversity criteria, once again, is that diversity among the key creative positions or diversity of the subject matter of the content?

5393 I’m not sure where this diversity lens would be applied.

5394 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Yeah, I think it was more understood as diversity meaning representativeness of Canada’s population. I think this is how it was presented to us by the panel yesterday.

5395 So not to put you on the spot. You know, if you agree, you could come back to us with your reflections and your views and I will ask my colleagues from legal to confirm the undertaking and the date at which we would receive your views, if you’re comfortable with that.

5396 MR. DI FELICE: Yes, I'm comfortable with that.

Engagement

5397 MR. DI FELICE: I would make one comment, that we live under a regime where ethnic content is a term of art when it comes to the Broadcasting Act and the CRTC. The other terms, multicultural, diverse, ethnocultural, now they’re undefined terms.

5398 Ethnic content is defined by the CRTC as a program in any language that is made for a distinct ethnocultural or diverse language group and that’s the definition we’ve lived under and abided by for the past 30 years. I’m not sure what diversity elements could be added, but we will certainly give this some thought and fulfil this undertaking.

5399 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. That’s all.

5400 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you so much.

5401 Maybe just a couple of things before we turn things back over to you for any concluding comments.

5402 In response to Commissioner Naidoo, you were sharing a number of examples that support your position. It sounded like perhaps you had others. I would just say that you are very welcome to include those in your final reply if that’s of interest to you.

5403 And perhaps I could also turn things over to our counsel, just to confirm the undertaking that was just referenced.

5404 MS. WEXLER: Yes, thank you. Bear with me for one moment. I’m just confirming that by June 4th, I understand you will agree to the undertaking for TLN to provide views on incorporating cultural elements, including the representation of diverse Canadians in Canadian programs into the point system.

5405 I’m just confirming that I’ve got all the information you want. Okay.

5406 Would TLN confirm this undertaking?

5407 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes, we can confirm that we will provide that by June 4th.

Engagement

5408 MS. WEXLER: Okay, thank you very much.

5409 Madam Chair.

5410 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

5411 At this point, we would like to turn things back over to TLN Media Group for any concluding thoughts.

5412 MR. DI FELICE: I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. In closing, I think we have two key messages we want to leave you with.

5413 First, with respect to the specific issue of how to define a Canadian program, whatever approach the Commission adopts should not make it more difficult for programming produced by ethno‑culturally diverse producers and broadcasters to qualify. That could mean allowing the current six out of ten‑point model to continue to be used for these types of programs or to create a different framework for them.

5414 Second, the recent amendments to the Broadcasting Act made a priority for the system content produced for and by ethno‑culturally diverse Canadians for broadcast on services owned by those Canadians. That priority is one that is no less important than what is required for other equity seeking groups, but to date, Commission policies have not recognized this fact.

5415 And over the last decade, the ethnic media sector, from production to broadcast, has been disadvantaged both in terms of regulatory protections and in terms of systemic financial support.

5416 In fact, the last time the Commission reviewed its ethnic broadcasting policy was nearly three decades ago, in the late 1990’s. We are here today to emphasize that the needs of ethno‑culturally diverse Canadians must be brought to the fore and must inform your decisions relating to production funding criteria and broadcast carriage requirements going forward.

5417 Thank you very much.

5418 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

5419 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

5420 I will now ask the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters to come to the presentation table.

5421 When you are ready, please introduce yourself, and you may begin. And please just push on the grey button for your mic to open.

Présentation

5422 MR. SEGAL: Good morning, Chairperson, Commissioners and fellow participants.

5423 I am Noah Segal, President of the Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters, CAFDE ‑‑ it rolls off the tongue ‑‑ and co‑President of Elevation Pictures.

5424 I am joined today by my fellow CAFDE member, Justin Rebelo, CEO of Vortex Media, and Mark Slone, President of Photon Films and Media.

5425 Collectively, we speak on behalf of the country’s leading independent film distributors and exporters.

5426 CAFDE is the national voice for Canadian‑owned film distributors dedicated to strengthening Canadian ownership and control, supporting the commercial viability of Canadian films and ensuring our stories reach audiences at home and abroad.

5427 Our members range from small independents to large organizations, all united in the belief that a robust domestic film sector is essential to Canada’s cultural independence and economic future.

5428 We appear before you in a defining moment for Canada’s film sector. Pressures, including proposed tariffs from the United States and a rapidly shifting marketplace, are placing unprecedented strain on our sector, one that is not only a vital economic driver, but also a pillar of our national identity and sovereignty.

5429 The livelihood of thousands of Canadians who work in film and the businesses that sustain them are at risk. Bold and decisive action is needed to safeguard both our cultural identity and the future of an industry that thrives on the creativity and dedication of Canadians.

5430 With this in mind, I would like to put forward CAFDE’s three key recommendations for improving public access to Canadian film, ensuring a robust market where new voices can flourish.

5431 First, prioritize Canadian IP ownership and financial control.

5432 Canadian ownership of intellectual property is foundational to our creative and industrial future. When IP and financial control remain in Canadian hands, we ensure that the economic and cultural benefits of our story stay here and that Canadian creators retain their creative vision. Without Canadian IP ownership, we risk becoming service providers to foreign interests, losing both our voice and our economic leverage in the process. This is not just a cultural issue, it is an industrial imperative that underpins the sustainability of the sector.

5433 Second, recognize the unique role of film and invest in the production phase.

5434 As you know, feature film is distinct from television. It is more creator‑centric with fewer gatekeepers and a lower barrier for new voices to break through. Canadian distributors play a crucial role from the earliest stages, often providing essential financing during production, which in turn triggers further investment and supports the growth of our industry and broadens choice for the consumer. To ensure a healthy ecosystem, we recommend that the Commission lower the CEP contribution threshold to $10 million in gross revenues, introduce a feature film specific incentive for pre‑production investment, and maintain robust support for independent producers. These measures will ensure that Canadian stories continue to be developed and financed at the earliest stages, rather than relying solely on acquisition after completion.

5435 Third, build a network that works, modernize the system and welcome streamers into our proven system. Canada’s legacy policies have built a robust industry that supports Canadian creators and audiences. As we adapt to a new landscape that includes global streaming platforms, it is important to recognize that acquiring Canadian catalogue or library titles alone is not sufficient. Streaming platforms should contribute meaningfully to our system, not just by acquiring finished films but by investing in the creation of new Canadian stories from the outset. This means a level playing field, clear requirements for investment, including maintaining historical contribution levels of 30 percent of gross revenues and ensuring full transparency when reporting expenditures and revenues.

5436 In summary, the stakes for Canadian culture and identity have never been higher. The choices we make now will determine whether our stories continue to be told or are drowned out by louder voices from abroad.

5437 We urge the Commission to take bold steps to protect Canadian IP, recognize the unique role of film and modernize our framework to ensure all players, including streamers, invest in the future of Canadian story‑telling.

5438 Thank you for your attention. We look forward to your questions.

5439 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to CAFDE for being here with us today. The Panel appreciates you bringing the perspectives and concerns of your members.

5440 We will start the questioning with Vice‑Chair Scott. Thank you.

5441 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Good morning.

5442 I will start with the point system. One of the things we’ve been hearing a lot during the proceeding is requests from various parties for flexibility within the point system. I’m curious for your thoughts on if we were to grant flexibility, in what areas would the big multinationals be happy? What categories would they pick and choose?

5443 So, in other words, where are they happy to spend their points and where would they rather protect their points?

5444 MR. REBELO: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the Commission today.

5445 I think as a film sector looking for ways to ensure that audiences are consuming Canadian film, we are open to the flexibility to ensure that we have marketability. However, there are some areas in the recommendations, I think, that very specifically apply to series, and we don’t think that film has been fully contemplated within that structure. So, I think there is some flexibility to consider film and expand on some of those definitions.

5446 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Is it your sense that if they had total flexibility, they would want to protect things like IP, financial interest? They might be a little bit more willing to have Canadian performers, Canadian writers?

5447 What would they be willing to do and not do?

5448 MR. SEGAL: Look, we felt, and I think when we spoke to you last way back ‑‑ I don’t know when that was; it was 100 years ago. The point system isn’t as big a concern for us. We appreciate there has to be one. In a weird way, we kind of all felt if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But we understand and allow the ability and the effort that everybody has made to try to make it more flexible for everybody.

5449 We really, really, really feel the bottom line is IP control and ownership long term in the projects.

5450 I go to a story. I was driving with an Uber driver yesterday, and I was explaining our business, of course, in the most overly complicated terms. And the bottom line is it’s an incredibly long line of how we get revenue, and that revenue drives basically the future for our businesses and our culture. So, we have to own it. That’s most important.

5451 So if the give and take is they have a little more flexibility of what gets done, as long as they can’t manipulate it ‑‑ when I say they, our incredible customers from streaming. As long as they can’t control it and we have that ownership, ultimately we will win. I mean, Disney was built around ownership of IP. Canada should be built around ownership of IP. End of story.

5452 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay, thanks. That's a really helpful perspective.

5453 You know storytelling really well. You were not supportive of the inclusion of a point for cultural elements. So, I’m wondering if we could dig into that a little bit, because I think there is a perspective that from the audience point of view, it is really easy and intuitive to say a movie about William Lyon Mackenzie King is more Canadian than one about George Washington.

5454 In what ways is that too simplistic? Can you just share your thoughts about what is and isn’t Canadian in that sense of the term?

5455 MR. SLONE: I think historically what we’ve seen is that rather than focusing on necessarily the specific story being told, it has a lot more to do with the available money in the system and therefore the ability of new voices to make film.

5456 In the nineties when the Pay TV services first came in, we remember there were tangible benefits. And it was in that period that we saw one of the greatest explosions of new voices, and particularly diversity in voices, in other words, women, ethnic minorities, different language groups operating in the opposite side, whether it’s French to English or English to French, and regional diversity in terms of who was making films.

5457 By the 2010’s, once we were here asking the Commission to better protect Canadian film, we entered a very dark period in Canadian film where there was a huge generic and flattening of the kinds of stories being told. This is when we entered in the States into the superhero era, and we created a lot of film that I would call non‑specific film, not specific to its place in Canada, not even necessarily identifiably Canadian, in a hope to fit into this generic world that had been created.

5458 The result was that some of those great creative voices that came up in the nineties, the Atom Nguyens, the Leah Pooles, the Mina Shums, the Zacharias Kanuks, were no longer being developed in that last period.

5459 Now with the streamers entering, what we’ve seen, even with their dabbling into it, is an increased interest in finding the diversity of voices. And it’s only been in the last few years that all of a sudden, we are getting voices that had been long silenced now finding their way to bubbles at the top.

5460 And if you look at some of the most successful films of the last few years in Canadian, again they harken back to the place in which they were shot or the community in which they emanate from.

5461 So, our conclusion is that it’s not about dictating what it is that goes into that film but rather ensuring that the diversity of film makers who have an opportunity to make that point have a chance to do so in a robust environment that ensures enough financial support that the films can get made properly in Canada and then further disseminate to the rest of the world.

5462 And if we remember, the number of years where Canadians walked the Red Carpet at Cannes, the Denis Villeneuves, the Jean‑Marc Vallees, all those years where the underlying supports were there rather than a dictatorial regime that said it must be about this subject or that.

5463 MR. SEGAL: And I would just add to that if we could just look at another country, as an example, I think Squid Games did a ton for Korea in its entire television and film business. I don’t think anybody could tell you in Korea that that was culturally forward for Koreans, about people killing each other just to get some money. But I think it’s incredibly valuable. Right?

5464 So why should we put down an edict of what’s important?

5465 I often think about my kids telling me who’s popular. So, it’s really not about us determining ‑‑ we don’t determine what culture is. Culture determines what culture is. But as Mark said, we just have to make sure that the good news is the world seems to want distinct, and Canada is distinct. So, we have to just allow that.

5466 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks. The last topic I want to explore is the idea of incentives, so specifically the proposal for an incentive for film.

5467 There are kind of two premises that I think underlie that. One, that film has a particularly important place, but also that the importance of that place wouldn’t necessarily be addressed by market forces.

5468 So, it’s important and there is a need beyond just what market forces would provide.

5469 Could you talk, first, about kind of the interplay of those two things?

5470 MR. REBELO: Yeah, incentives are extremely important for film. A number of years ago, there used to be 150 percent credit for investing in a feature film in the production phase, what we refer to as a pre‑buy. That was eradicated in the let’s talk TV era, in about 2016, when everything was moved from pay definitions to specialty definitions, and it really was damaging to the feature film community.

5471 So, we would very heavily recommend that be reconsidered and re‑implemented, because I think it will be game changing for the financing of Canadian feature film.

5472 MR. SEGAL: And just to add on that ‑‑ again, I’ll pile on ‑‑ again, structurally as we said in this paper that it looks like I wrote, but I had nothing to do with. It was AI that wrote that paper.

5473 I would say that Mark has often talked about the difference in the construction of how we actually build a movie’s financing versus a television show. In TV or streaming, there’s real gatekeepers. They put up most of the money, and they tell you what to make. As a producer goes in to try to develop their show, if they are lucky enough to get a pre‑buy from a broadcaster or a streamer, they are very involved in the creative process.

5474 With film, there are no gatekeepers. You’re going in to try and finish it in most cases before you go sell it in. And because it is a shorter project, like it’s two hours or three hours, if you’re doing The Brutalist, you really are on your own.

5475 So what Justin was saying is key. As long as there’s incentives, the films have a much easier hump to get over, and they have the market to go to. They don’t have those gatekeepers closing the door while you are trying to make a 20‑episode arc.

5476 MR. REBELO: One last point, which is Pay television really has always had, or television and broadcasting going back to the financing the film, has really been a core pillar of financing film. Obviously, all the other windows, theatrical, transactional, etc., etc., but television really has been a key piece in maintaining and ensuring there is a key incentive for our whole ecosystem. You know, levelling the playing field with streamers and our incumbents is really the pillar of the Canadian film financing motto.

5477 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I think this is probably my last question.

5478 One of our intervenors yesterday had a great line about incentives. She said roughly if you offer a multi‑billion dollar corporation a literal carrot, you shouldn’t expect their behaviour to change.

5479 So what’s your thought behind kind of the degree of incentive that’s necessary? On the one hand, is there a risk that if we under‑incentivize, we’ve complicated the system but not materially changed any decision‑making? Or if we over‑incentivize, do we have the effect of essentially de‑prioritizing other types of content that also are meritorious?

5480 MR. REBELO: Yes, you know ‑‑ and obviously we sat hearing Bell this morning, and we were very encouraged by them seeing Canadian content as a competitive advantage. However, I do believe, particularly today our overlying message is consider film within the Regulations. And I do believe that 150 percent or some structure of that nature to invest at the production phase will allow the system to support film in a much more robust and meaningful way. And I do think that those market forces would lean towards that.

5481 MR. SLONE: I would also add to your point that the carrot for them is good quality programming, that they can both encourage their subscribers to stick with the service and also will give them preferred access to the international market, in which a lot of these players operate as well.

5482 The question of treating film like it’s just one film, whether or not you have to buy movies generally, will always be superseded by the desire to buy the best movies and the finest films out there.

5483 The challenge for us has always been that once you watch a movie you are not encouraged to come back next week and re‑watch that same film. So the robustness of the competition that we believe we saw in the Pay TV era, and we believe has the inklings of happening here again, is what will ensure that that carrot is actually effective.

5484 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much.

5485 Madam Chair, those are my questions.

5486 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

5487 We will go over to Commissioner Paquette.

5488 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hi. So I think my colleague, the Vice‑Chair, scooped me a little on my question.

5489 But just to make sure that we summarize and we understand and push the idea further, regarding the programming at risk, you make a very good case to say that the Commission should support more feature films. We have other intervenors that stated that children’s programming is a genre that is at risk. Some others said that documentaries are at risk.

5490 If we had to put rules in place or decide which genres are at risk, what factors should more generally be considered when determining that certain types of content are at risk, of particular importance and need regulatory support?

5491 MR. REBELO: Yeah, I mean regarding PNI, obviously we are of the mind and recommendation that’s scripted, that it’s important to continue to be part of the ecosystem. Obviously, children’s programming fits into that as well.

5492 Our interest, of course, in family feature film programming, you know, we have seen an influx of that type of programming do very well theatrically and should carry out to the broadcast system. So, I think the PNI as its defined today as supporting scripted, as well as children’s programming, is something that we would continue to maintain and recommend considering it as it is today.

5493 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And do you have specific factors in mind to determine what programming should be considered at risk versus not?

5494 MR. SLONE: I think highlighting the youth and the family one is very relevant, particularly in English Canada. In Quebec, there is a much stronger history, especially at school break time, of taking your kids to see live action kids’ oriented film. In English Canada, that segment has largely been dominated by Hollywood and largely by animated as opposed to live action.

5495 So, in terms of risk and opportunity, I think that it is indeed there, particularly on the English side, which is to prioritize and recognize that family programming which tells Canadian stories is particularly difficult. It’s particularly difficult at a lower budget.

5496 Parents, you know if you’re a parent, you know you don’t take your kid just to anything. You want to make sure they have a good time, and they are enjoying what they’re watching; otherwise, it was quite the nightmare.

5497 So, we believe that that particular area is one that does require extra attention and extra funding to live up to the kind of standards that particularly English Canadian parents have come to expect.

5498 MR. SEGAL: The other thing I would just add to that is that if you want to segment those things, docs, kids and features, the interesting thing about kids ‑‑ and I know a bunch of friends of mine are in that business ‑‑ it’s not just about oh, my God, we need help. It’s that their complete business has shifted. The paradigm has shifted to YouTube, and their consumer is watching five‑minute segments on a phone. So, they’re watching Mr. Bee. It can be low budget. It can be high budget. But the entire segment has changed.

5499 Docs and scripted features really are much more geared towards a more grown‑up audience that tends to sit down to watch. People can watch on their phones, but it’s challenged by people watching less long form. But when they are watching, they are watching usually sitting down at a television set or something like that.

5500 The theatres are there, but it acts as a bit as a loss leader. So the support for the industry has to come in that streaming angle, because it’s really just a barker channel for Pay TV really and streaming.

5501 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you.

5502 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, great. Thank you so much.

5503 I know you said it’s been about 100 years since your previous appearance. I don’t think it’s been exactly 100 years, but I am pleased that you will be back with us in just over a month for market dynamics.

5504 We will turn things back over to you, if there is anything else that you would like to add.

5505 MR. SEGAL: We're the only guys that didn’t have a really robust summary statement.

5506 Like I said, I think the key, key, key is fundamentally from the first time we came here was we really are in that category of if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, except we want to add the streamers into the mix. I don’t think they can be excluded from this thing. They have to have that level playing field which everybody seems to acknowledge is very important.

5507 I said this the last time I was here, and I will say it again: Velocity is key. That’s why we were reluctant to be supportive of rapid change to a point system, because it just takes everybody more time to figure it out.

5508 I think as much as we’re in this moment of huge opportunity because there’s a strain in the entire ecosystem ‑‑ you people use that a lot ‑‑ for entertainment, meaning that the consumers are consuming a lot more, but they don’t want to pay and they are not paying the same way, so, it’s harder to get things made. With the streamers bearing down and reducing costs, it’s really hard to get stuff going.

5509 And if we don’t get something going fast where we welcome them into the system, where it could be a huge opportunity for Canadian film could be a disaster.

5510 So, everybody talks about the lack of jobs, etc. I’m telling you if the streamers step into this business and they join this fray, they join this kindergarten that we’re all in, we’ll have better Canadian content, more Canadian content, and a greater way to establish culture in Canada and export culture. We just have to move. We cannot be ‑‑ I hate to say it ‑‑ ultimately Canadian impassive. It is time for us to set these rules down and get them activated quickly.

5511 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much

5512 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a lunch break and be back at 12:45.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 12 h 00

‑‑‑ Reprise à 12 h 52

5513 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back.

5514 We will now hear the presentation of the Independent Broadcast Group, Le groupe de diffuseurs indépendants. Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

5515 MR. FORTUNE: Thank you. Madame Chairperson, Vice Chairs, Commissioners, and Commission staff, thank you for this opportunity to appear today.

5516 I am Joel Fortune, the Legal Counsel for the Independent Broadcast Group, an association of Canadian independent broadcasting companies.

5517 I am joined today by representatives from two of our members. To my left is Michelle van Beusekom, President and CEO of Knowledge Network, British Columbia's provincial educational broadcaster and national streaming service. To my right is Brad Danks, Chief Executive Officer of OUTtv Network, Canada's only broadcasting and streaming service that specifically provides programming for and by Canada's 2SLGBTQIA+ communities.

5518 The first objective for Canada's broadcasting policy in the Act is that it be owned and controlled by Canadians even while it recognizes the presence of non‑Canadian services and programming. This means that Canadian ownership of our media properties and creation of our own content should be at the centre of our policies.

5519 A sustainable broadcasting system must include and be based, substantially, on Canadian‑owned broadcasting services. And when we say ‘broadcasting’, we include online broadcasting.

5520 When you consider the question of what programming is ‘at risk’ in the emerging environment, looking 10 years down the road ‑‑ without a strong, Canadian‑owned broadcasting system with a diverse range of services like we have now, at least, the more realistic question might be, ‘What isn't at risk?’

5521 The rules making up the regulatory framework are interrelated. They need to work together towards a sustainable broadcasting system that in its totality supports the creation of Canadian content and its prominent availability and accessibility to Canadian audiences.

5522 Independent broadcasters have a vital role to play in the broadcasting system, and this includes helping to strengthen the cultural, political, social, and economic fabric of Canada, as it says in the Broadcasting Act ‑‑ or, in other words, our cultural sovereignty.

5523 MR. DANKS: IBG supports the Commission's proposal to retain an enhanced version of the existing Canadian points system for Canadian programs, together with the current requirements that production control be held by Canadians and production spending happen in Canada.

5524 Our key points on the proposal are as following. Firstly, we agree that if there is a ‘showrunner’ in a production, this person should be Canadian, but the point system should recognize that most productions do not have a ‘showrunner’ position. In that scenario, we proposed the existing 6 out of 10 or a 7 out of 13 point system be used.

5525 We have proposed that, in the case of smaller productions that do not have sufficient positions to earn at least 9 points, a 60 percent minimum be used instead of requiring all the remaining key creative positions be held by Canadians.

5526 The Commission's proposal that music be held by a Canadian rights holder, even when there is no original music, would be problematic for smaller productions and would entail significant expense. Where there is original music, this should be recognized as a key creative element.

5527 Lastly, having considered other submissions, to avoid excessive administrative burden, CAVCO‑certified productions should be recognized as Canadian. The administrative burden for producers and the CRTC alike to certify productions twice should be avoided.

5528 With respect to copyright ownership of Canadian programs, IBG supports a default, bright‑line rule that 100 percent of copyright be retained by Canadians. In addition to copyright, meaningful economic value in the production must also be held by Canadians.

5529 We strongly believe there are two essential reasons to maintain a bright‑line rule. First, ownership of intellectual property is key to generating sustainable and long‑term economic value in the cultural economy. All of the tangible economic benefits flow from copyright.

5530 Second, relaxing Canadian ownership rules would predictably lead to a ‘slippery slope’ with new ‘minimum’ requirements leaving Canadians with no meaningful participation in Canadian productions. Given the size of global entertainment companies compared to Canadian broadcasters and producers, there will always be pressure to concede ownership to ‘get the deal done.’ Foreign studios and streamers already have the power to negotiate favourable distribution and licensing terms. Ownership of the IP is really the only asset we can ensure we hold onto.

5531 Furthermore, there is no question that productions that are supported with public funding like the CMF, independent production funds, and the Canadian production tax credit, should be 100 percent Canadian‑owned.

5532 MS. van BEUSEKOM: The IBG supports the proposed 25 million‑dollar group revenue threshold for CPE requirements. Ideally, this threshold would be based on online revenue only, so as not to capture nascent online services by smaller independent broadcast groups.

5533 Services with 9.1(1)(h) status or other access rights could be required to make minimum commitments to CPE even if they don’t meet the CPE threshold. Provincial educational broadcasters have not been subject to a CPE requirement, given their mandate and public funding base. This approach should continue.

5534 IBG has proposed a high‑level model for CPE requirements for Canadian and non‑Canadian services.

5535 Firstly, BDU and online distributors that are similar to BDUs would continue to make contributions to Canadian programming through contributions to funds, support for community and news programming, through support for 9.1(1)(h) and (i) services, and through discoverability requirements.

5536 Secondly, Canadian programming services above the 25 million‑dollar threshold would propose CPE obligations consistent with their size, mandate and the support they receive from the system. They would not make direct contributions to third‑party funds.

5537 And thirdly, non‑Canadian programming services should be required, or strongly incentivized, to make their contributions through the mandated minimum contribution and through contributions primarily to third‑party funds and to co‑productions of Canadian programming with a Canadian broadcaster.

5538 With only a couple of exceptions, independent broadcasters have not been subject to PNI requirements. Knowledge Network pointed out in our separate submission that we are most active in two ‘at risk’ genres of programming: point‑of‑view documentaries and Canadian children's programming. Both types of programming are expensive to produce, hard to monetize, and important to the achievement of broadcasting policy objectives. They are central to Canadian culture and identity, and they are areas where Canada has traditionally excelled in international markets.

5539 If the major commercial channels continue to move away from these genres of programming ‑‑ willingly, or due to lack of regulatory support ‑‑ then the role of public broadcasters like Knowledge to fill the gap will be even more important ‑‑ to ensure that original kids programming and POV docs continue to be made and shared with Canadian audiences.

5540 Knowledge focuses on these categories of programming because of our mandate as a public broadcaster, and not because of regulatory requirements or incentives. Directing funding resources, platform access, and discoverability tools to support services working in documentary and children's programming is going to be even more important in the future if the larger broadcasters focus on other priorities.

5541 IBG agrees that news programming is risky to produce, difficult to monetize, and in need of regulatory support. The ILNF is key to supporting news programing on independent television services, and it is a clear success.

5542 We noted in our submission that, with the exception of OMNI, third‑language broadcasters are severely under‑resourced in the broadcasting system. As a result, the level of third‑language news programming created from a Canadian perspective is limited. Funding for third‑language programming or other regulatory supports, such as better terms of access for third‑language services, is necessary to support this content.

5543 MR. DANKS: Finally, IBG supports the Commission continuing and perhaps expanding its credit system for programs that are made by Indigenous producers and producers from equity seeking communities.

5544 The Commission should recognize that the key contributors to diverse programming in the system today are services that are targeted specifically to reaching and reflecting these communities. In OUTtv's case, for example, our programming is by and for Canada's 2SLGBTQIA+ community, and we have well‑established relationships with creators and producers in our community. You will see programs on OUTtv that are not available anywhere else in the broadcasting system and that would not exist without us. Now that our distribution is reaching into global markets, Canadian creators and independent producers are getting exposure and revenue from these markets too. This helps Canadian producers and OUTtv grow together in building a global ecosystem for our type of content.

5545 This is one of the key roles played by independent broadcasters. Together, we produce, commission and broadcast thousands of hours of programs each year that are specifically by and for diverse communities. This content and its role in the system cannot be replicated by foreign streaming services and the larger Canadian broadcast groups on their own. Yet with the expansion with streaming globally, the opportunity for more diverse content to shine has never been greater.

5546 IBG strongly supports additional financial resources, either new or within the current system, for diversity‑focused programming made for independent Canadian broadcasters. This includes ensuring the current definition of Canadian content is substantially maintained in terms of creative content and copyright ownership. Our continued role and success in the system depends on it.

5547 We very much appreciate this opportunity to review our submission with you, and we look forward to any questions you may have.

5548 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for being here with us today. We have a number of questions. In fact, my colleague, Commissioner Paquette, said that she knows I will be sending her Post‑it notes. So, I think we will just jump straight in, but again, many thanks for being here.

5549 MR. DANKS: Thank you.

5550 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you. And welcome to the IBG. Your participation is certainly appreciated.

5551 I think I will start on the point system. You suggest having more flexibility for smaller productions with a reduced point system, lower requirements in key positions. How does IBG propose to define ‘smaller productions’? What criteria could be used? Is it the budget, crew size, company’s revenue? And how would this apply in practice?

5552 MS. van BEUSEKOM: I mean, one way of approaching it would be by looking at genre. So, unscripted documentary, some of the new points are not going to apply. It feels like the point system that’s been proposed is really based on the high‑budget drama. So, ‘showrunner’, for example, would not apply in many unscripted ‑‑ not all, but many unscripted contexts or documentaries, or lower‑budget programs.

5553 And so, it’s really a pragmatic proposal. Genre might be one way to look at that definition, but where those points don’t apply, to just revert to something that resembles the current 6 out of 10 system ‑‑ just a very pragmatic approach and a recognition that many of those points are only relevant to larger productions, and specifically drama productions.

5554 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Okay, I understand. And, given our objective of a simple, future‑proof Canadian content definition, isn't there a risk that this proposal creates an additional complexity?

5555 MS. van BEUSEKOM: I don't think so, because it’s very aligned with the existing requirement.

5556 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And could it lead to certifying programs with both less Canadian cultural relevance and creative control of productions?

5557 MS. van BEUSEKOM: It should not, if we believe that the current criteria has served its purpose, this aligns precisely with that criteria.

5558 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you.

5559 Now I will bring you in on the subject of intellectual property. You suggest to prioritize Canadian IP ownership for the industry competitiveness, while allowing flexibility of business models. You also mentioned that currently, the CRTC does not require Canadian IP ownership but other programs like the tax credit do, and you warned the Commission that diverging from this norm could undermine Canadian ownership, reduce public funding, and pressure companies to cede IP rights to foreign partners. This is what you mentioned in your introduction.

5560 First of all, is there a problem in having different definitions at different levels of our industry at the moment? As an example, do you find it’s problematic that the CRTC definition is different, compared to the CAVCO definition or requirement?

5561 MR. DANKS: I don't think we see it as causing a lot of problems. It just creates more work. We’re suggesting this would be streamlined. I think where you were going was, you know, what are we trying to solve ‑‑ what problem are we trying to solve? I’ve been in this business for 30 years. I practiced as a lawyer for many years. I can tell you, when you’re in that financing situation with a larger partner, they’re going to want what they want, and it helps a lot if you have bright‑line rules, which is why we use that.

5562 As soon as you start giving wiggle room, now you’re into not only a philosophical conversation, but a long discussion about who’s in charge. So, that’s the slippery slope that we’ve referred. So, we’re suggesting pick bright‑lines. It’s going to make everybody’s life a lot easier, but it’s also going to help the industry because that’s a line that, once drawn, is beneficial to Canadians.

5563 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And it couldn't be a way to bring flexibility in the industry, to have no IP requirements at a certain level, but IP requirements at other levels like funding or tax credits?

5564 MR. DANKS: I don’t see THE ACCUSED: advantage of it, because the system is based on providing economic advantages at the outset in terms of Canadians funding their own programming. Where there’s tremendous flexibility, I mean, is in the distribution rights, which is the next step. Now, all distribution rights flow from copyright, as we know, derivative rights, all the other rights. So, at least we have that starting point.

5565 After that, and we have a line in there that mentions economic rights as well. A lot of foreign distributors might say, ‘Well, we’re going to take distribution rights for 25 years, plus two 25‑year options.’ Right? Well, CAVCO in the past has stepped in and said, ‘Well, you know, that’s not sufficient. That doesn’t work. That’s essentially giving up the copyright.’ So, this becomes a great sort of starting point to land on in terms of copyright ownership, that we can then negotiate from.

5566 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And many of the IBG members work on an international level? Would a Canadian IP requirement align with those priorities? Like, having an absolutely Canadian IP requirement gives less flexibility to partners at the international level?

5567 MR. DANKS: It doesn’t change anything. If we’re on a distribution level or a licensing level, it doesn’t change anything. If we do have a co‑production ‑‑ an official co‑production ‑‑ the co‑production treaty itself manages the copyright issues within the treaty. So, if we were doing, you know, a Canadian content co‑production, that’s how we would get around that issue.

5568 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. So, you feel that Canadian co‑production treaties are doing their job right now? There is no need to modify the requirement, the ‑‑

5569 MR. DANKS: No.

5570 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ copyright treaty requirement?

5571 MR. DANKS: I would say there’s always room for improvement and enhancement, due to all the changes, but no, I think the basic concept is being done well.

5572 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you.

5573 So, now I bring you in on the subject of PNI and CPE. The IBG believe that some independent services may still require PNI or similar obligations. What specific failure or gaps would these obligations address, do you think?

5574 MR. FORTUNE: I think what we’re referring to there ‑‑ I believe ‑‑ I believe the reference we said, that services that may, for example, benefit from a 9.1(1)(h) or (i) order, or have other, similar access rights ‑‑ you know, they’re benefitting from access to the system, and therefore a reciprocal obligation to commit to certain genres of programming or things that are different to do, and which justify that regulatory status, could warrant a PNI‑style regulation.

5575 So, it’s really what we’re saying is, there could be a quid pro quo, and perhaps there should be a quid pro quo. When it comes to ensuring distribution of these services, they could make commitments in that area.

5576 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Oh, I understand. So, we're not strictly talking about PNI, but we’re more talking about the distribution of your services ‑‑ of some services of your members?

5577 MR. FORTUNE: Absolutely. It’s a ‑‑

5578 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, I ‑‑

5579 MR. FORTUNE:  ‑‑ system, so, ‑‑

5580 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ understand now.

5581 MR. FORTUNE:  ‑‑ you know, there’s a lot going on here, so we’ll have lots to say at ‑‑

5582 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

5583 MR. FORTUNE: ‑‑ the next hearing, too, but it’s a ‑‑

5584 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I understand now ‑‑

5585 MR. FORTUNE: Yeah.

5586 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE:  ‑‑ what you proposed. And now, let’s talk about your proposal to create a fund for services of exceptional importance. The IBG is not the only intervenor that has put this idea forward.

5587 How should the Commission determine which programming services are to be eligible for this fund?

5588 MR. FORTUNE: Maybe I'll take ‑‑ I'm relatively neutral on these issues. When we first raised the issue with the Commission at the hearing two years ago or a year and a half ago, we said that was an interim measure, and we said, Look, the starting point is to start with those services that have already been recognized as sort of being services of exceptional importance under the distribution framework. And I continue to believe that's the starting point.

5589 But we're not closing the door. And I think the Commission ‑‑ I mean, that's within the Commission's area of discretion to make those decisions as to what services are of exceptional importance. We think there's room for growth in that area, quite possibly. But everybody sort of has to make their own case in that area.

5590 We pointed to a few examples, you know, areas of particular interest around children's programming, perhaps third‑language programming come to mind as a couple of areas that could be covered, you know, other equity‑seeking groups. TV is in that, you know, has a distribution order, as you know, and there's discussion going on around that. That's another area.

5591 So we don't think it's a closed door at all, but the starting point is the existing services ‑‑

5592 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: The 9.1(1)(h) services.

5593 MR. FORTUNE: Yes.

5594 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And some intervenors suggest that rates paid for the distribution of 9.1(1)(h) services should count towards CPE contributions. So why a fund instead of CPE contribution?

5595 MR. FORTUNE: We don't have an issue with recognizing the contribution that a streamer or BDUs, for that matter, through wholesale fees make to supporting these funds. Let's recognize it.

5596 Now, how is it categorized? Does it come off the top of some other obligation and, you know, are we robbing Peter to rob the CMF? I don't think that's our objective at all. So yes, let's give them credit. But then it really, you know, what is the denominator? What's the number we're starting with against which people receive credit is really the issue. So we don't see this as a zero‑sum game, in other words.

5597 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, and Bell has proposed, well, kind of proposed the idea of the fund but said everyone should contribute and this should replace the rate, the wholesale rate paid by the BDUs. What do you think of this proposal?

5598 MR. FORTUNE: Yeah, well, our initial view is that the existing BDU framework should be maintained, certainly, for now. There's no reason to be in a hurry to change that. It's established. There's value given for carriage of these services. The Commission has a mechanism to set that value. We don't see a reason to rush and change that. I mean, in the future, there could be a different approach, by all means.

5599 I think AMI made a good point which is, you know, we're not talking ‑‑ theses services of exceptional importance shouldn't be capped and then, you know, eventually ground down into the ground as, you know, as pressures happen on funding generally. The objective is to create a more sustainable system. That's the word we're using, sustainable and one that allows growth.

5600 And for example, online, part of Bell's proposal, I think, was that these services should be offered, you know, for nothing, for free basically to everybody who pays into the fund. We addressed this in the other proceeding, but it's a bit problematic because there are costs involved with delivering programming services to different streaming platforms. Those would have to be addressed. And you know, as far as the Commission's jurisdiction goes, there are different terms as to what you can order in terms of terms of carriage online versus BDUs. So that's another question.

5601 So we thought as far as that online distribution goes, that is something that is dealt with in the Act in terms of there has to be a good faith negotiation and then there's, you know, possible Commission intervention to deal with issues of good faith negotiation between a mandatory 9.1(1)(i) service and an online platform. And so we thought that mechanism is already present in the Act and really is the answer to how to deal with online distribution of the services.

5602 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And you mentioned that Canadian third‑language news production is at risk and suggest that independent service should only be required to provide such news if funding and platform access are assured. What specific funding mechanism would be most effective for third‑language service production?

5603 MR. FORTUNE: Well, there is a separate proceeding now with the ILNF going on, and we did participate in that proceeding on this question, so we did think that that funding mechanism could also be appropriate for third‑language services that aspire to provide news. I don't think we went ‑‑ I think we said if there's funding and access, then it could be expected that some services in exchange for that would provide the news programming. I think that's right. It would be hard to require news to be provided by these small and often very fragile services without appropriate support for that function, so.

5604 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, so you didn't have any specific funding idea in mind ‑‑

5605 MR. FORTUNE: No, we thought it was the ILNF that's been put on the table.

5606 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

5607 MR. FORTUNE: Now, it could be a totally separate sort of fund. And if there were enhanced access that provided a revenue base, then that could be adequate.

5608 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And talking about the ILNF, you suggest assessing new expenditure requirement on a case‑by‑case, considering the third party resources and the financial resources and third party funding like ILNF. What criteria should be used to determine whether a broadcaster has the capacity to meet its obligations or not, should or should not have access to funding?

5609 MR. FORTUNE: Well, I don't want to get into too deep water, here. Our view on the ILNF as far as it is now is that it works well and supports those target broadcasters that it does support well, and that that system is functioning, provides for local news in communities served by independent television broadcasters. So we're not looking to change that.

5610 The idea was if there were additional resources, if the funding were expanded to provide for, for example, third‑language news programming, then I think the expectation would be, okay, depends on the level of funding. If the funding is there for a weekly public affairs program focused on the specific third‑language community, then okay, you have to offer that content to get the funding, similar as it is now, probably based on a proportion of cost. But it assumes funding. This is an incremality question, you know. We're not interested in harming the existing structure for independent local news.

5611 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Mm‑hmm. I understand. Thank you very much. No more questions.

5612 THE CHAIRPERSON: And no Post‑it notes. Okay. Let's go to Vice‑Chair Théberge. Thank you.

5613 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Good afternoon. Nice to see you.

5614 You've just mentioned in your presentation that BDUs and online distributors that are similar to BDUs should contribute to Canadian programming through discoverability requirements, among other things. As you know, we're going to be exploring discoverability writ large in the context of the MDS hearing, but for now, could you provide more details on how discoverability requirements would work? Are we talking about a fixed percentage of a catalogue? Are we talking about requirements regarding prominence of the content on the home pages, for example? Are we talking about contributions to marketing? If you could just unpack that for us.

‑‑‑ Discussion officieuse

5615 MR. FORTUNE: All right, so we did address this in more detail in that other submission. And we provided some illustrations of what could be provided, you know, landing page, you know, key prominence for Canadian services. But ultimately, there's a lot of diversity and a lot of different business models and display formats and so on in the system.

5616 So our view was the platforms themselves, the Commission should establish its general expectations around prominence. You know, thou shalt provide prominence. And then, as a part of setting the service conditions for different services, it would hear from those providers, This is what we're doing to give prominence to Canadian services in programming in our environment online, and these are the commitments we're making.

5617 And I think ‑‑ and I'd have to go back and review the submission as to exactly the examples we provided, but I'm sure Brad can ‑‑ Brad's itching to go, here, so he can provide some examples.

5618 MR. DANKS: You know, there's a number of things. We're lucky, because we've been able to get on a number of these platforms and learn about them. But without proper marketing on them, you disappear. So some are better than others, and there's sort of emerging criteria.

5619 I think the first thing is the Commission has to take strong note that these platforms can do a lot or very little for you, depending on what they want to do. Right now, I think they're all mostly working hard to do the best they can do. Certainly, in the two areas where, you know, you provide them with a ton of metadata and other things which helps them within their customer base find you, surfacing you.

5620 But the two things we see emerging that are problematic are, one, is obviously their own content. Own content preferences is a problem. They'll push you towards their own content. So we see that emerging.

5621 And the other, which is very much a long‑term concern is marketing and marketing costs, because the platforms are increasingly asking you to pay for marketing. And some are extremely good at it, some are good at it, some are not as good at it. But it seems to be a thing in the industry where you're spending more and more and more of your revenue on marketing. And there are marketing demands which are reaching in excess of what your revenue can be on the platforms. So I see this as a huge long‑term problem within the industry where they say, Fine, but you've got to be writing us a cheque for X amount. And you look at what you're making, and you're now giving them ‑‑ not only are you doing a revenue share probably on let's call it a 50‑50 basis, but you're also taking that 50 per cent and giving 40 per cent of it back for marketing on those platforms. So longer term, this is going to be a big issue.

5622 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. And maybe just a broader question on international partnerships. I'm trying to figure out to what extent international partnerships are a condition for the financial sustainability of the organization and the companies that you represent. And is this an area where the CRTC should focus on, you know, trying to facilitate or at least not create obstacles for international partnerships, or should our focus be more on sustaining companies in Canada to produce Canadian content for Canadians produced by Canadians? I'm trying to get a sense of, you know, the role it plays in your strategic planning and your future financial sustainability.

5623 MR. DANKS: Well, a couple of questions, but I'll try and ‑‑ it's sort of a big‑picture question.

5624 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Yes.

5625 MR. DANKS: Fundamentally, the single most expensive part of your business these days, particularly with all the new technology, is content. Content is usually for most companies more than half of your budget and maybe closer to 60, 65 per cent. Once you have sunk that cost, it's your obligation then, really, to go out and find the audience for that and who is your total addressable market.

5626 So for OUTtv, when we launch in a new territory ‑‑ and we're now, you know, we sold last year in more than 30 territories internationally, but we're very active in now 15 across the world. And every time we go into a new territory, a new platform, we see that we make more money. And consumers are funny that way, where they like to consume their content wherever they are. So we just launched on the new YouTube spot, so this is in the US. Soon as we launched, we got all these subscribers. Well, they could have got us on Amazon or Apple or Roku, but they decided to wait for YouTube. Right?

5627 So fundamentally, the more you export your content, in my view, the more you can spend on your content, and the more sustainable your business is long term. So I think it's critically important that we recognize that. I mean, the Canadian system was not really based on that when we first started. It was heavily reliant on American content.

5628 Why do American content ‑‑ why do they dominate the industry? They have the largest domestic market. Once they were done that domestic market, they said, Can we take this somewhere else? They did. Now, most of them make most of their money outside of the United States. Right?

5629 So right now, the whole world is trying to do it. They're trying to do it in the UK. They're trying to do it in Scandinavia. They're trying to do it in all these places. And as Canadian companies, we're very well positioned to take advantage of what's going on in the world.

5630 We just launched in Taiwan. You know, why did Taiwan want us? Well, they don't have a channel like ours. But also, American services are receding to their streamers. They're approaching differently. There are holes in the market that are opening up for Canadian companies that are entrepreneurial.

5631 The more money we make in Taiwan, the more money we make in Australia, the more money we make in the UK, the more money we make in Scandinavia, that goes back indirectly to Canadian producers because they get a portion of that, maybe not from that show, but for the next time we make that show with them when we work with them because we can spend more money on the shows because, you know.

5632 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: So given your successes ‑‑ and congratulations ‑‑ am I to conclude that there is nothing in our current regulatory requirements, our regulatory framework that has created obstacles for these things to happen?

5633 MR. DANKS: No obstacles.

5634 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: No obstacles.

5635 MR. DANKS: I don't believe ‑‑ I don't think there's any obstacles, no, because you really just need to be able to own your content. You've helped it happen because of Canadian content and our ability to access and make cheaper content, and you've helped us to the extent we've got distribution. If you really want to help Canadians export, make sure that the home fires are left burning. Give them an opportunity at home to at least have that start.

5636 You can't negotiate a deal for me with Amazon to get into the US. But if I prove myself in Canada and I get a Canadian audience, then they're a lot more interested. And that's happened to us is where we've had ‑‑ you know, we got on in Canada, and then they'll go, Oh, look, you're getting subscribers. We'll take you now in the US. We'll take you now in the UK. That sort of thing.

5637 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: So success at home helps success abroad. That's what you're saying.

5638 MR. DANKS: That's what I'm saying.

5639 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: All right, thank you. Thank you.

5640 MR. FORTUNE: Sorry, I just think we've got to round out this question a little bit because you've posed it as sort of an either‑or. Is it either domestic or is it international, you know, what is your group all about. And I think Michelle should add to this from the domestic perspective.

5641 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

5642 MS. van BEUSEKOM: Yeah, and it's interesting that it's Brad and I who are here, because we're kind of on the opposite ends of the spectrum for the IBG. Brad is very much focused on making great Canadian content and exporting it to the world. And as B.C.'s public broadcaster, I am very focused in leaning into the local and making sure that B.C. audiences are well served by the original content that we produce with domestic producers, content that otherwise would not be made in the system.

5643 If those producers were going to Toronto and working with commissioning editors there, they would end up making a very different type of product. We always hear on the other side of the mountains, of the Rocky Mountains, that our audience are forgotten. They don't see themselves as often reflected in Canadian screens. And that's the specific role that we play.

5644 Really high‑quality local content, like a series we have on right now called Wild Fire, a five‑part series, premium, high‑quality, looking at the summer of 2023, which was the worst summer on record for wild fires that devastated the province. We are all over media and social media. And that is something that we can do at the local level that would not be done by one of the bigger broadcasters. It really is a system, as Joel says. And yeah, we're in different parts of the spectrum. But it's not an either‑or. There needs to be support for both throughout the ecosystem.

5645 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: But in both cases, what I'm hearing is success at home is important ‑‑

5646 MS. van BEUSEKOM: A hundred per cent.

5647 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ for different objectives, perhaps ‑‑

5648 MS. van BEUSEKOM: It's the core.

5649 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ but it's the core.

5650 MS. van BEUSEKOM: It's the core, yeah.

5651 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Thank you for your answers. That's all.

5652 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I just think when we were hearing from OUTtv about marketing, it looked like the Knowledge Network wanted to get in. Is there anything that you wanted to add on that point?

5653 MS. van BEUSEKOM: Yeah, it was just on the prominence piece. So our streaming service, you know, we're available on Fire Stick and Roku and iOS and Apple Store, and prominence is an issue. Discoverability is an issue, letting people know that our apps are available there. So I looked to the UK's Media Act, and you know, the requirement there for prominence for public services. And I hope that's what we'll be looking towards in Canada.

5654 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that. Let's go to Commissioner Naidoo.

5655 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. I have a couple of questions for you. With so much third‑language content available from international sources, how does IBG propose to ensure that Canadian‑produced third‑language programming remains visible and discoverable? And what measures do you think are needed to support its discoverability in a crowded global media environment, particularly as Canadian viewing habits in particular are shifting online?

5656 MR. FORTUNE: Well, I mean, that's a huge question, and it's not within IBG's control or for that matter any of our member companies' control in terms of what distribution they get, how prominent are they on BDU platforms, what does prominence and distribution look like on online platforms. These are small, independent companies dealing with very large and powerful Canadian BDUs ‑‑ let's not forget them; they may be small compared to Apple, but they're dominant in the Canadian market and extremely important for success ‑‑ let alone dealing with the new platforms.

5657 But it's important, I think, that the ‑‑ I think it's time for the Commission to take a deep look at the third‑language and ethnic market as Aldo Di Felice was saying this morning. It's been a while since you've really looked at this environment, and certainly the independent services are having a very tough time making, firstly, continuing to thrive and make a contribution on BDU platforms ‑‑ it's very challenging ‑‑ and secondly, making the transition online.

5658 And these things are connected. Right? It's not one or the other, it's similar to the domestic and international market. You have to be strong domestically to get to international markets. Well, you have to have the support and thrive in the ‑‑ you know, what is still a dominant Canadian BDU environment in order to develop and grow and make your way to online platforms. So I guess it's similar to the domestic‑international theme. It's let's make sure that our BDU environment is strong and supports the third‑language and ethnic broadcasters so that they can continue to grow and develop and move online. They're all active, you know, on various platforms, so.

5659 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Did you think that there were any measures that specifically need to be addressed to ensure discoverability of that content?

5660 MR. FORTUNE: I think this is something we're going to have to look at in more detail in the next hearing. That's really where we were moving to. So I think I'll perhaps address that in final reply, take a pass on that one for now, specific ideas.

5661 I think it's, you know, it's content; it's Canadian content. So the previous answer applies to some extent. All platforms are different. They should be expected to support this content. Let's hear from them how they're going to do it. Let's put the onus on the experts.

5662 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you. And thank you for saying that you're going to be here for the other hearing as well where you can bring some of that up.

5663 We don't have any co‑production treaties with the United States. Are there additional protections or considerations in your view with respect to IP that we need to take into account when thinking about partnerships between Canadian producers and American streamers, producers, and studios?

5664 MR. DANKS: I don't really think there's much to be done. I just think there needs to be a firm understanding that we have two separate yet complementary industries. We have a very successful production services business in Canada that provides a lot of jobs and raises a lot of people. I mean, I'm a product of it. I worked in that industry, worked for US studios, and then learned to do what I do. We really benefit from that, Canada.

5665 But then we have to say, What do we do to support our own IP and think about that differently. And we don't have to necessarily take from one or the other. I just think we have to be clear that when we're dealing with that muddy middle which is, you know, we believe here with respect to allowing Canadian content to be made by the streamers, we just have to say, No, well, that's another system.

5666 You know, we can continue to work, but the only way you can get IP ownership or deals with an American company is going to be if you have leverage and you have the ability to do that. And we have a couple of deals we've been able to do that. Not with the major streamers or the studios, but with America companies and partners and stuff. But it really is always going to come down to economic power. And when you're dealing with the big ones, you know, there's not much you can do.

5667 I think it's really just being clear in your mind what is this. Is this a service deal, or is this a situation where a Canadian company is going to be owning and participating at a higher level? Let's make sure we're clear when we're in that world that we're providing what needs to be provided.

5668 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you for that. Did any of you have anything to add, or ...? No. Those are all my questions. Thank you.

5669 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. We've covered a wide range of issues together this afternoon. We would like to turn things back over to you if there is anything that you would like to add. Thank you.

5670 MR. DANKS: No, nothing, just thank you so much for appearing and what you're doing. It's really important. Canadian content has worked. I've been in this industry for a long time. I've worked on a lot of Canadian content productions, and I've seen the benefits with the IBG strongly supported. And we really look forward to talking to you about distribution in the next hearing. Thanks.

5671 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

5672 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a short break and be back at 1:45.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 13 h 37

‑‑‑ Reprise à 13 h 42

5673 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bon retour. Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation du Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique. S’il vous plaît vous présenter et présenter vos collègues.

5674 M^me BLAIS : Bonjour, Madame la Présidente, avant de débuter, nous aimerions vous demander la permission de déposer un sondage que nous avons fait préparer en lien avec une affirmation qui est dans notre mémoire au paragraphe 41. Cette affirmation, c’est que la télévision demeure la première source d’information au Canada devant les sites ou applications de nouvelles en ligne et que ce l’est de façon beaucoup plus répandue dans le marché francophone que dans le marché anglophone. Donc, on vous demande la permission de déposer ce sondage.

5675 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Parfait. Alors, le panel va considérer cette question. Puis on va déterminer, rendre une décision. Merci.

5676 M^me BLAIS : Parfait, merci.

Présentation

5677 M. LECLERC : Alors, bonjour, Madame la présidente, membres du Conseil et du personnel, merci de nous recevoir.

5678 Je me présente : Brian Leclerc, président du Conseil provincial du secteur des communications du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, le CPSC. Je suis en compagnie, à ma gauche, de monsieur Carl Beaudoin, vice‑président médias du CPSC et de monsieur Marc‑André Hamelin, vice‑président du Syndicat des employés de TVA pour la station de Montréal. À ma droite, vous trouverez madame Nathalie Blais, conseillère à la recherche au SCFP et monsieur Dominic Bourdages, vice‑président de la maison CROP. Monsieur Bourdages pourra répondre à vos questions sur le sondage qu’il a produit à notre demande sur l’information locale au Québec.

5679 Le CPSC représente des milliers de personnes qui sont à l’emploi d’entreprises de radiodiffusion du marché québécois de langue française. Depuis plus de dix ans, ces radiodiffuseurs encaissent les contrecoups de l’entrée dans leur marché de multinationales étrangères qui profitent du système canadien de radiodiffusion sans y contribuer de façon équitable, comme le prévoit maintenant la loi. Cette situation doit changer.

5680 Les entreprises en ligne étrangères doivent être réglementées pour contribuer financièrement à la programmation canadienne. Sans ce soutien supplémentaire, l’emploi, ainsi que la production de nouvelles et la diversité d’information essentielles à notre démocratie, seront en péril ‑‑ particulièrement dans les régions.

5681 Les coupes de personnel et des demandes de modification de licences soumises par les grands acteurs canadiens de l’information ‑‑ il y a déjà deux ans ‑‑ en sont la preuve. Dans le marché de langue française, Québecor et Bell Média souhaitent obtenir l’abolition de pratiquement toutes leurs obligations visant les dépenses et la présentation de nouvelles de reflet local.

5682 Si le Conseil acceptait ces propositions, les téléspectateurs seraient en droit de considérer que la réalité locale des marchés de Montréal, Québec, Sherbrooke, Trois‑Rivières, Rimouski et Saguenay, n’a aucune importance aux yeux du Conseil et que seules les nouvelles ayant une portée provinciale ou nationale méritent d’être protégées.

5683 Depuis que la station TVA à Québec est devenue un centre de production pour les bulletins de nouvelles des autres stations régionales du groupe, il y a un an, on observe d’ailleurs que les équipes journalistiques locales peinent à conserver le contrôle éditorial de leurs bulletins de nouvelles.

5684 C’est sans compter qu’elles ont vu leur bulletin du midi jumelé à celui d’une autre station. Le temps disponible pour l’information locale a ainsi fondu de moitié. Il y a donc déjà moins de nouvelles reflétant la réalité locale et une perte de la diversité d’information dans les marchés de Sherbrooke, Trois‑Rivières, Rimouski et Saguenay.

5685 Or, l’enquête Phoenix réalisée pour le compte du Conseil montre bien que l’information est le type de programmation le plus recherché par les Canadiens et les Canadiennes. De plus, c’est la télévision qui est encore le média le plus utilisé pour consulter les nouvelles au Québec selon un sondage CROP réalisé en mars dernier.

5686 On peut constater que plus d’une personne sur deux se tient au courant de l’actualité grâce à la télévision. Même les jeunes de 18 à 34 ans ‑‑ qui sont les plus grands consommateurs de nouvelles sur les réseaux sociaux ‑‑ ont encore recours à la télé pour s’informer.

5687 Quant à l’intérêt pour les nouvelles locales et régionales, il est bien réel et plus important à l’extérieur de la grande région de Montréal. Au Saguenay‑Lac‑Saint‑Jean, sur la Côte‑Nord, dans le Bas‑Saint‑Laurent et en Gaspésie, les nouvelles locales ont même davantage d’importance que les nouvelles nationales.

5688 Les Québécois et Québécoises sont particulièrement friands de nouvelles locales de dernière heure, ainsi que de nouvelles portant sur l’économie, la politique et la justice dans leur communauté. Ils sont presque unanimes pour dire qu’il est important que l’actualité locale soit couverte par des médias situés dans la région, car leurs équipes journalistiques ont l’expertise et une meilleure connaissance du terrain.

5689 Tout comme dans l’enquête Phoenix, les Québécois et les Québécoises estiment qu’il est important ‑‑ en cette ère de désinformation ‑‑ d’avoir accès à une actualité qui est rapportée par les médias fiables, dont les journalistes ont des processus de vérification de l’information.

5690 Ces constats confirment que la réglementation du Conseil en matière de nouvelles de reflet local est pertinente, puisque les gens veulent savoir ce qui se passe dans leurs communautés. Il est donc primordial que le CRTC maintienne les obligations assurant le financement ainsi que la production d’une certaine quantité d’information locale originale et qu’il exige que le contrôle éditorial soit exercé par les équipes journalistiques de chaque station régionale.

5691 Par ailleurs, les nouvelles et les émissions d’actualité ne doivent pas être incluses dans les émissions d’intérêt national. Il s’agit d’un type de programmation coûteux et éphémère, mais qui a une grande importance pour l’intérêt public et qui doit être traité différemment des émissions de divertissement.

5692 Cela étant dit, les radiodiffuseurs privés produisant de l’information doivent tout de même être soutenus financièrement parce qu’ils contribuent à atteindre les objectifs sociaux de la loi. Nous appuyons donc l’idée d’élargir le FNLI ou de créer un autre fonds financé par les entreprises en ligne étrangères visant la production de nouvelles par les radiodiffuseurs traditionnels canadiens, y compris ceux des grands groupes intégrés verticalement.

5693 En tout respect, il est illusoire de croire que le marché va s’autoréguler pour atteindre les objectifs de la politique canadienne de radiodiffusion en matière d’information locale et d’emploi. Il faut réglementer les entreprises en ligne étrangères et éviter de déréglementer totalement les diffuseurs canadiens.

5694 Le CPSC l’a souvent affirmé et c’est toujours aussi vrai : sans la réglementation du Conseil, il n’y aurait plus de nouvelles locales et de diversité d’information en région depuis longtemps. Par ses conditions de service et ses règlements, le CRTC peut assurer la production d’information locale et, du même coup, le maintien des effectifs journalistiques en région.

5695 Merci de votre attention.

5696 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup pour vos soumissions. Merci pour votre présentation cet après‑midi. On va commencer avec la vice‑présidente Théberge. Merci.

5697 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci. Merci. Bienvenue. J’ai beaucoup de questions. Donc, je vais essayer d’y aller rondement. Vous avez beaucoup parlé des nouvelles. J’y reviendrai dans mes questions, mais je veux commencer peut‑être par d’autres choses, notamment la définition et ce que vous proposez dans votre soumission.

5698 Vous suggérez de ne pas ajouter de critère culturel à la définition, à l’exception de la langue française ou des langues autochtones. Pouvez‑vous nous expliquer un petit peu comment ça fonctionnerait? D’autres intervenants ont suggéré l’ajout d’un critère de diversité plutôt. Alors, on aimerait avoir un peu vos perspectives sur la façon de refléter ces suggestions ou s’il est approprié de refléter ces suggestions dans la définition modernisée du contenu canadien.

5699 M. LECLERC : Alors, merci pour la question. Je vais référer la question à ma collègue, madame Blais.

5700 M^me BLAIS : En fait, quand on a fait cette affirmation‑là dans notre mémoire, on se référait plutôt à notre contexte à nous. Mais c'est vrai que le Conseil doit prendre en considération beaucoup plus d'éléments, là. Donc, on n'a pas d'objection à ce qu'il y ait d'autres critères qui soient pris en compte, des critères culturels. Cependant, on voulait y réfléchir et voir qu'est‑ce que les autres intervenants allaient apporter comme information.

5701 Et, bien sûr, on n’aurait aucune objection à ce qu'il y ait des critères de diversité qui s'appliquent ou d'autres critères culturels. J'ai vu notamment que l'ONF trouvait que c'était important pour refléter justement l'ensemble des communautés canadiennes. Donc, c'est une question, si vous voulez, pour laquelle je réserverai une réponse plus complète, là, dans notre réplique finale.

5702 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Parfait, merci. Bien entendu. Sur les émissions d'intérêt national, vous indiquez, toujours dans votre soumission, que les documentaires de longue durée et les émissions dramatiques et comiques ne semblent pas avoir besoin de soutien réglementaire à première vue, du moins dans le marché de langue française. Pourriez‑vous élaborer davantage sur les raisons pour lesquelles le Conseil ne devrait pas encadrer de façon réglementaire les documentaires de longue durée et sur quelles données est‑ce que vous vous basez pour une telle affirmation?

5703 M^me BLAIS : En fait, dans le mémoire, les données sur lesquelles on s'était basé sont les rapports annuels cumulés du Conseil, là, qui sont remis à chaque année par les grands joueurs de la radiodiffusion. C'est sûr qu’on a une vision un peu bloquée parce qu’on n'a pas toutes les données. On ne sait pas, par exemple, qu'est‑ce que les joueurs étrangers font en matière de documentaires de longue durée et d'émissions dramatiques et comiques canadiennes. Donc, on ne voit que la portion canadienne, en fait, les diffuseurs canadiens, ce qu'ils produisent.

5704 Et on le voit mieux dans le marché de langue française, si je me souviens bien, que dans le marché de langue anglaise, parce que la différence est beaucoup plus grande, c’est‑à‑dire qu'on investit beaucoup, qu’on a investi davantage… il y a eu une augmentation plus grande dans les émissions dramatiques et comiques du côté francophone, là, l'année dernière, entre autres. L'année 2022‑2023 a été une année où on a presque doublé les investissements en émissions d'intérêt national. Donc, il y avait là‑dedans beaucoup d'émissions dramatiques.

5705 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : J'essaie juste de comprendre votre position puisque, nous, ce qu'on avait saisi, c'est que c’étaient des domaines qui allaient bien et donc n'avaient pas besoin d'être encadrés…

5706 M^me BLAIS : Oui.

5707 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …de façon réglementaire. Mais quelqu'un pourrait dire : « Bien, ils vont bien parce qu'ils sont encadrés par la réglementation. » Alors j'essayais de comprendre un petit peu c'était quoi votre position par rapport à ça.

5708 M^me BLAIS : C'est ça. Nous, on l'a vu de façon très générale, on n'est pas entrés dans les détails. Par exemple, j'ai vu que l'AQPM a vraiment décortiqué, vraiment, tous les types d'émissions un par un. Nous, on a juste regardé globalement par rapport, par exemple, à l'information. On a vu une croissance incroyable des investissements dans le marché francophone pour les émissions d'intérêt national, donc on s'est dit effectivement : « Il n’ a peut‑être plus besoin de ce soutien‑là. » Mais ça n'enlève rien au fait qu'il y a d'autres groupes qui peuvent vous amener des statistiques beaucoup plus complètes que les nôtres.

5709 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Parfait. Sur la question, donc, des nouvelles dont vous avez parlé abondamment ‑‑ et on vous remercie ‑‑ vous demandez qu'un pourcentage des dépenses en émissions canadiennes spécifique aux nouvelles soit imposé par condition de service à chaque télédiffuseur ou groupe de télédiffuseurs traditionnels, sans spécifier le taux. Comment le CRTC, à votre avis, devrait déterminer ce taux et est‑ce que les contributions devraient être différentes pour le marché de langue française et pour le marché de langue anglaise?

5710 M^me BLAIS : Pour ce qui est du pourcentage, on ne l'a pas mentionné et on est en réflexion présentement parce que, compte tenu que les revenus des radiodiffuseurs baissent d'année en année, si on conserve des dépenses en nouvelles locales qui sont un pourcentage des revenus de l'année précédente, on se retrouve dans une situation où ce pourcentage‑là diminue constamment. Et il y a beaucoup de pression aussi pour les diffuseurs à produire d'autres types d'informations.

5711 Et c'est facile de dire : « Bien, on va aller piger dans les nouvelles. » Parce que tous les diffuseurs dépensent plus, là, je vous dis ça un peu à l'œil, là, mais dépensent plus que les 5 pour cent qui sont actuellement imposés dans le marché de langue française. Donc, présentement, on pourrait diminuer probablement de moitié les investissements en nouvelles, avoir des pertes d'emploi importantes, avoir beaucoup moins de nouvelles locales, régionales, nationales et internationales. Et le Conseil n'aurait pas les moyens de s'assurer que les objectifs de la loi sont… qu'on atteint les objectifs de la loi.

5712 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Mais vous n’avez pas une idée précise de ce à quoi ressemblerait le taux ou quel genre de critères devraient être considérés?

5713 M^me BLAIS : Bien, c'est sûr qu'il faudrait absolument qu'il y ait des nouvelles qui soient produites localement. Il faudrait qu'il y ait, par exemple, qu'on respecte un code de déontologie journalistique. On le mentionne brièvement…

5714 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Oui.

5715 M^me BLAIS : …dans notre présentation. Mais, à l'ère de la désinformation, ça devient une caractéristique distinctive du système canadien de radiodiffusion que de produire des nouvelles selon des normes. Et on devrait même faire la publicité de ça pour que les gens sachent quelles sont les sources fiables et les sources moins fiables, donc, des critères de qualité. Puis il y aurait aussi un critère de quantité de nouvelles. Idéalement, on voudrait également que les stations régionales puissent avoir un contrôle éditorial des nouvelles qui sont produites. Et, là‑dessus, je demanderais peut‑être à Marc‑André ou à Carl de parler un peu de ce qui se passe en région.

5716 M. BEAUDOIN : Bonjour. Bien, en fait, de mon humble avis, l'enjeu n'est peut‑être pas au niveau de… C'est parce que, évidemment, le contexte a changé depuis le dépôt du mémoire qu'on a fait. Dans les derniers jours, on a vu plusieurs groupes passer devant vous qui plaidaient beaucoup de… qu'il fallait y aller peut‑être par un allégement réglementaire. Mais on pense, nous, c'est peut‑être plus de nature financier que réglementaire. La réglementation actuelle n’était pas nécessairement mauvaise, puis n’était peut‑être pas non plus un fardeau qui était insoutenable pour les diffuseurs, à notre humble avis.

5717 Puis, en réalité, on est souvent en accord avec plusieurs demandes d'allégement qui ont été faites, entre autres, par Québecor et Bell. On veut qu'ils soient capables, qu'ils soient en mesure d'être plus concurrentiels avec les géants en ligne, ça va de soi, et qu’ils offrent une programmation de divertissement principalement axée sur les séries dramatiques. Mais au niveau de l'information, encore une fois, ces derniers, ils n'en font pas de nouvelles. Donc, encore moins de façon locale.

5718 Puis, à notre avis, c'est essentiel de garder une réglementation claire en ce qui a trait particulièrement aux nouvelles, qui est un poumon essentiel, là, de la démocratie, surtout en région, là, au niveau du marché francophone, évidemment, là. Pour la réalité qu'on a, nous autres personnellement, il y a eu de gros changements qui se sont opérés il y a un an, comme on en a parlé dans notre présentation, que, maintenant, le point de diffusion centrale pour les régions est maintenant Québec. Évidemment, les décisions éditoriales se prennent aussi à Québec. Donc, c'est une... À l'époque, on parlait quasiment de montréalisation, mais, maintenant on peut parler quasiment d’une québécisation, là, des ondes par rapport à ce qui se passe réellement en région, là.

5719 Ça fait que, la déréglementation, pour nous, ça n’a jamais fonctionné dans aucune sphère d'activité. Puis c'est important selon nous que l'information locale… En tout cas, pour notre part, si ça n’avait pas été des décisions que le CRTC a rendues à l'époque obligeant les diffuseurs à avoir une présence locale et surtout un reflet local, en toute humilité, je pense qu'on ne serait plus là devant vous pour en parler aujourd'hui.

5720 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Vous avez raison, on a beaucoup entendu parler, donc, de nouvelles depuis quelques jours. Québecor en a parlé. Bell en a parlé. Vous nous en avez parlé. Vous n’êtes pas les seuls. Il y a des solutions aussi ou, du moins, il y a des propositions qui ont été mises de l'avant pour améliorer le financement dans le secteur des nouvelles. Québecor a proposé un fonds distinct, un nouveau fonds distinct qui serait financé de ce que j'en comprends strictement par les plateformes étrangères. Ce matin, Bell a proposé une réorientation de certains fonds à l'intérieur de son organisation au profit de la production de nouvelles.

5721 J'aurais aimé entendre un peu vos réactions par rapport à ces propositions de solutions. Est‑ce qu'elles sont porteuses? Est‑ce que, de votre point de vue, ça soulève des inquiétudes, notamment en termes d'indépendance journalistique? Avoir des nouvelles qui sont financées par un fonds payé par des plateformes étrangères, est‑ce que ça soulève des enjeux? Vous avez parlé tantôt de code de déontologie. J'essaie de nous amener dans un mode un peu de solutions, là, applicables. Et comme vous avez l'oreille collée sur le terrain, je serais intéressée à avoir vos perspectives là‑dessus.

5722 M^me BLAIS : C'est sûr que la solution amenée par Bell ce matin est intéressante au sens où ça permettrait un soutien intérimaire, là, c’est‑à‑dire que, si on y va tout de suite avec la solution proposée par Québecor… et qu'on soutient, là, qui est un fonds soit dédié ou un FNLI renouvelé qui couvrirait davantage, là, de diffuseurs. On attend parce que, là, les contributions de base… pardon, les contributions de base que vous avez demandées aux entreprises en ligne étrangères, cette décision‑là est devant la Cour fédérale d'appel. Donc, on est bloqués, là. Puis on est bloqués pour combien de temps?

5723 Et, nous, on sent qu'il y a vraiment une urgence, là. Hier, il y avait encore 30 coupures de poste chez TVA. On ne sait pas encore exactement si on va être touchés. Dans les régions, il reste six personnes par station régionale. Donc, ce n'est pas beaucoup de gens pour produire l'information. Notre sentiment, c'est que, s’il n’y a pas une solution intérimaire, bien, ces stations‑là vont peut‑être fermer. Et, là, on va avoir des régions où il n'y aura plus d'information au Québec, où on va avoir… ou sinon, on aura beaucoup moins de diversité de l'information.

5724 Donc, c'est pour ça que la solution de Bell nous semble intéressante. Cependant, elle a un côté négatif, c’est‑à‑dire qu’on… ça aurait, de ma compréhension, ça pourrait avoir un impact sur les sommes qui sont investies dans la production indépendante ou sur les sommes qui sont investies dans la télévision communautaire. Donc, il n’y a pas de solution parfaite. Mais, ce qui est clair, c'est que les radiodiffuseurs sont dans une situation de concurrence assez injuste avec la presse écrite, par exemple, qui obtient des crédits d'impôt du fédéral et, au Québec, du provincial également, là, des crédits d'impôt qui totalisent à peu près 50 pour cent des salaires des journalistes. Donc, on se trouve dans ce déséquilibre‑là. Je sais que vous n’avez pas de prise sur ces crédits d'impôt là, mais ça prend une solution intérimaire et il n’y en a pas de parfaite, là, qu'on peut voir. Voilà.

5725 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci. J’ai reçu un Post‑it de la présidente, qui me dit que je ne peux plus parler.

5726 M^me BLAIS : J’ai vu ça.

5727 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Parce que mes collègues ont plein d’autres questions. Alors, je vais céder la parole à mes collègues. Merci.

5728 M^me BLAIS : D’accord. Merci pour vos questions.

5729 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Le Post‑it me… oui.

5730 LA PRÉSIDENTE : C’est tellement drôle. Mais vous avez une réponse aussi, quelque chose à ajouter?

5731 M. BEAUDOIN : En fait, c'était plus pour dire que les modèles de financement pour… t’sais, des télévisions traditionnelles remonte... ça fait assez longtemps. On parle des années ’60, peut‑être, au niveau du financement par la publicité. Évidemment, ce qui a changé beaucoup dernièrement, dans les dernières décennies, à tout le moins, c'est l'arrivée des grands joueurs en ligne qui sont venus s'accaparer une grande partie de ces publicités‑là.

5732 Je suis un peu mal à l'aise de dire que, oui, il pourrait y avoir des décisions qui pourraient se prendre au niveau du financement. Ça fait drôle de dire qu'on finance l'information, mais, malheureusement, l'information aujourd'hui, ça a un coût. Qu'est‑ce qu'on veut, c'est qu’on finance cette information‑là ou qu’on s'enligne tout simplement vers la perte de l'information, là, de l'information locale en région?

5733 Ça fait que pour revenir au fait que, même si on allait dans la voie de la déréglementation, il n’en demeure pas moins que l'information va toujours avoir un coût pareil même après, là, qu’on ait déréglementé. Ce n'est pas ça nécessairement qui va, à mon humble avis, qui va être la solution au problème parce que c'est un problème de financement qu'on a présentement, là, et non pas un problème de réglementation.

5734 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci.

5735 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Alors, on va continuer avec la conseillère Paquette. Merci.

5736 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Peut‑être une question, madame Blais, est‑ce que je vous ai entendue dire dans une de vos réponses aux questions de ma collègue que les diffuseurs produisent plus de nouvelles en ce moment qu'ils sont requis d’en produire?

5737 M^me BLAIS : Je ne me souviens pas avoir dit ça.

5738 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. J’avais mal compris.

5739 M^me BLAIS : C’est correct.

5740 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : De la ma question. Qu'est‑ce que… Comme vous savez, on avait Québecor, on avait d'autres diffuseurs devant nous récemment, dans les derniers jours. Qu'est‑ce que vous répondez aux diffuseurs qui, comme Québecor hier disait ‑‑ puis je vais citer ce qu'ils ont dit, ils ont dit :

« Il est inutile ni souhaitable de surréglementer le contenu nouvelles alors que les télédiffuseurs d'ici ont déjà prouvé leur volonté d'offrir une couverture de qualité sans l'intervention du Conseil »?

5741 Donc, dans la mesure où ils le font déjà, leur position, c'est de dire : « On n'a pas besoin d'être réglementés. »

5742 M^me BLAIS : Bien, je pense que le Conseil est là pour une raison. C'est qu'il doit s'assurer que les objectifs de la loi sont atteints. Personnellement, je n'ai aucune confiance que les diffuseurs vont être capables de maintenir leur respect des conditions de service actuelles dans la situation financière dans laquelle ils sont. Donc, s’il n’y a plus de conditions de service, plus de réglementation, bien, ce sera la fin. Le CRTC n'atteindra pas, par exemple, l'objectif de diversité de l'information ou l'objectif d'information locale en région. Je pense que c'est essentiel pour cette raison‑là.

5743 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K., je comprends. Puis je vais vous amener sur un autre, un tout autre terrain, qui est celui de l'intelligence artificielle. Vous dites dans votre intervention que l'IA devrait être utilisée pour assister le personnel de postproduction et non pour le remplacer. Assister implique tout de même de remplacer des tâches humaines par des systèmes. Est‑ce qu'il y a une approche ou des solutions pour empêcher des pertes d'emplois? Comment votre organisation réagit à la montée de ces nouveaux outils qui, quand même, ont un impact sur l'emploi?

5744 M^me BLAIS : Oui, comment le SCFP réagit à ça? D'abord, on tente d'informer le plus possible les membres sur la façon dont fonctionnent ces outils. Il y a beaucoup de collecte de données personnelles qui est faite généralement pour pouvoir alimenter ces systèmes‑là. Donc, ça, c'est, je pense, un aspect sur lequel on devrait porter notre attention aussi ici au CRTC.

5745 Puis ce qu'on souhaite, c'est qu’il y ait des discussions pour qu'on… avant l'implantation des systèmes d'intelligence artificielle, pour qu'on voie également comment on va travailler. Parce que c'est des systèmes qui vont amener, par exemple, une intensification du travail. Parce que si j'ai un assistant IA, par exemple, qui peut écrire des courriels pour moi ou écrire des textes, bien, on va me demander de faire plus de textes dans ma journée, de faire plus de travail. Donc, il faut absolument qu'il y ait une discussion avec les employés pour voir comment on va les utiliser, comment on va travailler avec la machine. Et c'est dans ce sens‑là qu'on dit… Parce que ça va amener des réorganisations forcément du travail. Alors il y aura peut‑être des postes qui vont perdre une partie de leurs tâches, qui vont être recombinés avec d'autres postes.

5746 Et je pense qu'il faut absolument qu'il y ait une discussion, il faut qu'il y ait un côté humain. Puis je sais que vous n’avez pas d'objectifs par rapport à ça, mais c'est sûr qu'on aimerait bien qu'il y ait des balises qui soient données sur l'utilisation de l'IA, jusqu'où ça peut aller dans le système canadien de radiodiffusion.

5747 Et aussi les... tout ce que j'ai lu jusqu'à maintenant… Et peut‑être que, Dominique aussi, tu aurais quelque chose à ajouter là‑dessus, c'est que les gens ne sont pas… en fait, le public s'attend à ce qu'on lui dise quand on utilise l'IA pour produire du contenu. Donc, ça, c'est peut‑être plus dans votre champ d'expertise, là. Comment on va aviser le public qu'on a utilisé l'IA, par exemple, pour produire des nouvelles, pour produire une série? Peut‑être que, pour produire une émission de divertissement, c'est moins compliqué, on peut l'indiquer au générique, peut‑être. Il peut y avoir un message au début de l'émission. Pour les nouvelles, ça va dépendre du type de nouvelles. Ce n'est pas tout ce qui… tout ne pourra pas être fait grâce à l'IA. Et avoir une assistance, par exemple, pour écrire un texte, c'est une chose. Mais faire produire la nouvelle en entier par un système d'IA dont la fiabilité n'est pas garantie, c'est une autre chose. Donc, c'est là où les gens, je pense, décrochent, là.

5748 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui.

5749 M^me BLAIS : Est‑ce que tu veux ajouter quelque chose?

5750 M. BOURDAGES : Bien, tout à fait. On suit l'évolution des perceptions puis de l'attitude des Canadiens et des Québécois par rapport à l'IA. Puis, en fait, les gens voient deux choses. Ils voient des opportunités extraordinaires parce que l'IA peut créer des choses merveilleuses rapidement qu'on ne pouvait pas avant. Mais, d'un autre côté, effectivement, avec tous les dérapages, il y a de grandes craintes quant aux risques qui y sont associés. Donc, les gens ne sont pas dupes. Ils voient les deux côtés de la médaille.

5751 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien, merci. Pas d'autres questions.

5752 LA PRÉSIDENTE : D'accord. Merci beaucoup. Alors, notre collègue, la conseillère Naidoo a une question en anglais, mais on vous encourage de répondre dans la langue de votre choix, comme d'habitude. Commissioner Naidoo.

5753 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yes, please feel free to put your earphones if you would like. I apologize. My French isn’t very good and I want to make sure that you can understanding me, so.

5754 I wanted to ask you about, you ‑‑ I don’t know if you were here earlier when BCE was chatting, and they suggested not wanting quotas on local news and locally reflective news. They say news directors will have, in their view, more editorial control that way, but I think many would argue that newsrooms are simply focused on just doing news that reflects their audience’s needs on any particular day in their local markets without even really thinking about quotas at all. They’re just trying to just do what’s happening, right.

5755 So without some minimum, what protection is there for local news? Couldn’t stations just decide without any sort of quotas to cut back on staff, double up on content from other markets or from national sources and how would that impact local news?

5756 I’m wondering if you could tell us what your response is to BCE’s proposal.

5757 MS. BLAIS: I would first answer, and I may not finish in English, but I wanted to start in English for you.

5758 So what I ‑‑ I think that Bell had a very good point when they said that sometimes, you know, you want to cover something that’s a little bit outside of your area and it would be relevant for you to cover that for your ‑‑ for the people you serve, but it’s outside the purview of the area of the station so you cannot count it as local reflection. So I think that’s where we could have some flexibility between local/local and local/regional, you know. Like not regional as Quebec, but maybe as a region of Quebec. Like if you’re in Saguenay, you could, you know, go a bit further to Chibougamau, maybe, to cover some story about ‑‑ what would be in Chibougamau?

5759 Natural disaster, for instance, and it’s the region that’s next to yours, so this would be really relevant for your region. But if you’re doing news from Quebec’s National Assembly, this wouldn’t count as locally reflective.

5760 We fear that if we don’t ‑‑ if we do not have that boundary or framework, then every local news would become provincial news, and that’s what we’ve seen with “Vie” when TQS was bought by Remstar. They changed the name and then they started ‑‑ we started to look at the news they were doing. That was in 2012. And we could see that maybe one news on, I don’t know, 15 news per newscast would be really local. All the rest was provincial news.

5761 And maybe Marc‑André, je… oui, j'aimerais ça que tu parles peut‑être, ou Karl, que vous parliez de la situation, de la façon vraiment dont ça se passe, le travail des nouvelles dans les stations régionales maintenant, depuis un an.

5762 M. BEAUDOIN : Pour compléter là‑dessus, c'est que, dans les objectifs de la loi en quelque part, c'est qu'on dit qu'il faut que les émissions soient axées sur les nouvelles, l'actualité, mais, aux niveaux local, régional, national et international, pas seulement les deux derniers critères. Quand on parle de reflet local, ce n'est pas un gros calcul à faire, ce n'est pas un fardeau qui est excessif non plus à gérer. Ça ne prend pas énormément de temps non plus pour le calculer, là.

5763 Mais, par contre, c'est essentiel parce que, sinon, comme Nathalie disait et Bryan, on va se ramasser avec des nouvelles qui sont seulement de pertinence locale. Donc, la pertinence locale peut être couverte avec un coût très, très minimum. Par contre, on va avoir une qualité d'information en région qui va être aussi très, très, très minimale à ce niveau‑là. Donc, c'est important pour nous de faire une grande distinction puis que la... Puis la présence locale sur le terrain va faire en sorte qu'il va y avoir de la pertinence locale pareil, mais qui ne sera pas de la pertinence provinciale ou nationale en termes d'intérêt pour la population.

5764 Ça fait que c'est important pour nous. Puis c'est pour ça que, dans ces rapports‑là, on pense que, pour que le Conseil soit en mesure aussi d'exercer sa mission de surveillance du système canadien, ces conditions de services là devraient toujours être là pour permettre au moins de savoir si vraiment il y a une couverture qui se fait digne de ce nom. Je donne un exemple, dans une station du Bas‑Saint‑Laurent, on peut avoir des nouvelles qui vont promener dans une autre région totalement, là, mais qui n’a même pas une pertinence locale pour eux autres parce que, exemple, ce qui se passe à l'hôtel de ville de Saguenay a vraiment aucune incidence à Rimouski ou à Matane, en fait.

5765 Puis je comprends que ça a encore une fois un coup. Tout est basé sur le coup et non pas sur la réglementation. Je reviens toujours à ça, mais le fait est, le fait demeure que l'information va toujours avoir un coût, puis que, si on ne réglemente pas, on va se ramasser avec une couverture qui va être provinciale au même titre qu'une chaîne spécialisée en information pourrait faire alors que le mandat d’un généraliste n’est peut‑être pas là. Pour arriver à répondre aux objectifs de la loi, il faut que l'information locale digne de ce nom soit reflétée dans la population desservie dans le marché, là.

5766 M^me BLAIS : Peut‑être juste pour préciser ce que Karl vient de dire. Présentement, c'est la station de Québec qui produit le bulletin de nouvelles du midi pour deux stations à la fois. Donc, dans le même bulletin, qui dure 15 minutes, avant, chaque station avait son 15 minutes de nouvelles locales. Maintenant, c'est Rimouski et Saguenay, qui sont à peu près à ‑‑ quoi? ‑‑ 600 km de distance, Rimouski et Saguenay qui sont dans le même bulletin. Les 2 stations partagent le bulletin.

5767 Et, selon la pertinence… Seulement le midi, oui. Seulement le midi. Et selon ce que le chef de pupitre ou la personne qui produit le bulletin à Québec juge le plus pertinent, on va choisir une nouvelle de Rimouski ou une nouvelle de Saguenay pour faire à peu près moitié‑moitié, mais ça va être 60 pour cent un jour pour Rimouski, 40 pour cent Saguenay. Puis le lendemain, ça peut être l'inverse.

5768 Nos membres dans la région ont souvent des commentaires quand ils vont, par exemple, à l'épicerie, ils se font dire : « Bien, oui, mais ce n'est plus intéressant, votre bulletin. Vous ne parlez jamais de la région. Vous parlez de l'autre région. Mais, moi, je ne veux pas savoir ce qui se passe là‑bas. » En fait, on est en train de reproduire le problème qu'on a avec la montréalisation des ondes, le fait qu'on parle toujours trop de Montréal dans les bulletins de nouvelles. Mais, là, c'est le même phénomène, mais entre deux régions qui sont plus loin du centre. Et c'est la même chose pour les stations de Sherbrooke et Trois‑Rivières, qui partagent leur bulletin.

5769 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. You’ve answered the question.

5770 Thank you.

5771 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup, merci pour vos réponses. Alors, peut‑être on peut vous céder la parole pour peut‑être une conclusion. Merci.

5772 M. BEAUDOIN : Je vais le dire en tout respect, je comprends que, l'information, elle a un coût puis que c'est dur pour les radiodiffuseurs présentement puis qu’il y a peut‑être un gros enjeu, là, justement au niveau du financement, mais, encore une fois, en tout respect, le CRTC, c'est un organisme public qui est indépendant, qui est chargé de réglementer et de superviser la diffusion et la télécommunication canadienne. Donc, je me dis qu'en région, la population serait en droit de se demander à quoi servirait un organisme qui fait de la réglementation qui choisirait la voie de déréglementer. Ça deviendrait pour eux une entrave à leur démocratie locale, régionale.

5773 Ça fait que, pour nous autres, c'est important, comme je disais tantôt d'exercer la mission de surveillance à cet effet‑là pour ne pas qu'on devienne juste avec des nouvelles qui vont se passer en région, voire pas de nouvelles du tout ou des nouvelles simplement nationales ou internationales, surtout avec ce qu'on vit récemment avec les nouvelles au niveau des tarifs qui viennent des États‑Unis et cætera, les contre‑tarifs. Il y a du monde qui ont des impacts au niveau des régions, entre autres, je pense à ceux qui travaillent chez Rio Tinto au Saguenay‑Lac‑Saint‑Jean qui, eux autres, sont très, très impactés. Ça fait qu’il y a de l'intérêt local aussi, pas juste de savoir ce qui s'est dit avec le ministre Carney dans les réunions qu’il a eues avec monsieur Trump, entre autres. Il faut que ça se reflète aussi sur le terrain. Puis si le monde n’ont pas l'impact réel qu’ils ont chez eux, ça met en péril carrément la démocratie, là, au niveau régional, là, quand une population est moins informée, disons.

5774 Puis juste pour clore là‑dessus, merci de votre temps que vous nous avez accordé là‑dessus. Entre autres, je reviens sur ce que madame la conseillère Naidoo a parlé, entre autres, quand il y a des bulletins de circulation, exemple, à Montréal, on va substituer le signal par des manchettes locales le matin dans toutes les stations régionales du groupe. Ce qui fait en sorte que, depuis qu'on a centralisé…

5775 Parce que, avant chaque station était autonome et produisait ses propres brèves qu'on appelle le matin de substitution. Maintenant, ce n'est plus le cas. C'est seulement Québec qui va produire parce qu'on n’a même pu les effectifs techniques pour le faire dans ces stations‑là. Ce qui fait en sorte que… Évidemment, je le comprends, il 23h59 pour… J’ai entendu, on a vu les coupures hier. Dans l'esprit de Québecor, il est 23h59 avant de peut‑être vivre l'hécatombe, quoiqu'on en a déjà vécu une bonne partie déjà. Mais on présente… on produit une brève qu'on va rediffuser 11 fois durant une période de 3 h 30.

5776 Ça fait que ça incite un peu le monde à dire : « On va décrocher. » Puis, après ça, le monde n’est plus au rendez‑vous. Pourquoi? Parce que ça a un coût. Puis maintenant, le coût a fait en sorte qu'on a fermé des centres de production à chaque station, puis qu'on parle de 75 pour cent de coupes qui ont été faits dans chaque station régionale du groupe. Ça fait que c'est dur d'arriver après ça puis dire : « On va faire une couverture digne de ce nom puis on va bien desservir le marché au niveau de l'information locale. »

5777 Voilà pourquoi que c'est essentiel pour nous que des réglementations… on n'est pas… on est d'accord avec une déréglementation, mais pas à outrance pour permettre au moins que la population continue d'être informée à ce moment‑là. Parce que, juste pour terminer, si on n’avait pas eu ces conditions‑là, présentement, je ne suis pas sûr que je suis devant vous pour en parler.

5778 Voilà. Merci.

5779 M^me BLAIS : Juste peut‑être pour vous donner une idée de ce que les gens pensent en région, je laisserais juste une petite minute à Dominic pour vous faire un petit résumé de ce que vous allez retrouver dans le sondage.

5780 M. BOURDAGES : Une chose qui est particulièrement importante, on parle de l'importance des nouvelles locales, mais c'est aussi important qui traite ces nouvelles locales là. Et ce n'est pas une question de crédibilité journalistique, parce que les grands groupes journalistiques provinciaux, nationaux disposent de cette crédibilité‑là aux yeux des consommateurs ou des téléspectateurs. C'est plus une question de manque de familiarité avec la réalité régionale.

5781 Donc, ces gens‑là… Je vais prendre un exemple très, très simple. On parle de tarifs de guerre commerciale avec les États‑Unis depuis quelques mois déjà. Une des premières choses qui est sortie, c'est les tarifs sur l'aluminium. À chaque fois que c'est traité, on parle que le Québec sera la province la plus impactée. On parle un peu de Rio Tinto, mais, pour les gens du Saguenay, où il y a trois, au moins trois alumineries qui sont là, là, Laterrière, Arvida et Alma, la réalité est tout autre. Elle est beaucoup plus complexe. Il y a beaucoup plus de ramifications que ce que, nous, on peut vivre de loin.

5782 Donc, c'est beaucoup plus une question, donc, de familiarité, de présence sur le terrain, puis de comprendre ce qui se passe pour en parler.

5783 LA PRÉSIDENTE : De la part de notre panel, merci beaucoup pour votre participation.

5784 M^me BLAIS : Merci à vous.

5785 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Merci. Nous allons prendre une courte pause de retour à 14 h 35.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 14 h 25

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 40

5786 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back.

5787 Lisa, can you hear me?

5788 MS. MACKLEM: I can.

5789 THE SECRETARY: Perfect. Thank you.

5790 You may introduce yourself and you may begin.

Présentation

5791 MS. MACKLEM: Thank you so much.

5792 Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, Members of the Commission and Commission staff, thank you so much for your work on this consultation and allowing me to present today. My name is Lisa Macklem, and I am appearing as a private person and all opinions expressed here and in my intervention are my own.

5793 This committee has been charged with an almost impossible task, to define Canadian content. As a Canadian, one of the things I am most proud of is our diversity, so to quote a great Canadian success story, Schitt’s Creek, “I’m into the wine, not the label.”

5794 As I only have five minutes, I’d like to focus my attention on commenting on some of the many things that I’ve heard in these consultations so far. My own expertise lies in having an MA in Media Studies, a JD in Intellectual Property, and an LLM in Entertainment and Media Law, which I completed in Los Angeles. As I hope this indicates, I have a reasonably unique perspective in understanding the industry from several angles and countries.

5795 So first off, let’s talk about how to support the creation of Canadian content.

5796 I’ll begin by stating that I’m a big fan of incentives over requirements. Incentives offer money, while requirements cost money. Most studios and broadcasters are businesses trying to make a profit, so money is going to speak to them. Our tax credits are already working to bring productions to Canada which, in turn, has helped us to build a world‑class infrastructure.

5797 I’ve heard suggestions about giving credit for having a Canadian showrunner and I fully support this idea. I think there should be much more flexibility and a wider range of talent that helps a production qualify as Canadian.

5798 I’ve heard a lot about how the market has shrunk. It’s important to realize that this is not just a Canada problem. Studios in Los Angeles are also feeling the pinch and looking for ways to economize.

5799 I’ve also heard a lot about bigger budgets and more funding to ensure great Canadian programs get made. However, if you ask anyone in the business ‑‑

5800 THE SECRETARY: I’m sorry. Can you speak slower, please, because you’re speaking very fast and the interpreters need to follow.

5801 MS. MACKLEM: Sorry. Sure, sure.

5802 So insides will tell you that it’s a mystery as to what the next big thing is going to be. I can cite lots of huge budget flops like Joker: Folie a Deux is the latest example, and tiny budget successes like The Blair Witch Project, which is still the poster child, but this year’s Oscar winner, Anora, had a budget of only $6 million.

5803 So much can go wrong between that first word on the page and the first minute in a theatre, which we’ve heard from other intervenors.

5804 But is the point here just to increase Canadian GDP? I don’t think so. The point is to give a voice to Canadian creators to preserve and disseminate Canadian culture and values. There are many ways to support creators in Canada. A lot of different grapes go into that great wine.

5805 Education can be supported through supporting productions that hire Canadians. It was also suggested that colleges and universities could offer more programs, but colleges and universities have also struggled and, recently, Fanshawe College here in London where I’m based has essentially dropped their broadcast program entirely due to budget constraints.

5806 There needs to be more support for emerging creators. The Copyright Act balances users’ rights and creators’ rights through fair dealing and the UGC exception, allowing the education and research necessary for new creators. However, funding should also lean towards helping new creators become established. More funding should be available for these emerging creators.

5807 My second point is on flexible criteria. There have been lots of suggestions on how to do this. Whichever criteria is put in place should avoid instances in which a Justin Bieber or Bryan Adams song does not qualify as Canadian. I fully support bumps for showrunners but also bumps for emerging creators. An emerging Canadian creator could have a lower criteria score or perhaps get a bonus point so if an established creator needs six out of 10, an emerging creator should need four or five out of 10 or get that bump to get to six.

5808 So I also support having different categories for different genres. And why shouldn’t a Canadian make a documentary set entirely in a different country if that documentary showcases a Canadian perspective on an important issue? Canadians do go to space, and we can thank people like Roberta Bondar and Chris Hatfield for making a Canadian perspective known there and Robert J. Sawyer for taking us into the future.

5809 My third point is on discoverability. I completely agree with what BCE was saying this morning. By using incentives rather than requirements, we let the experts pick the best content. We should also let the experts do the work on discoverability.

5810 Streaming, as we know, has disrupted the traditional “Hollywood” model of distribution windows to different territories and platforms. Schitt’s Creek is an excellent example of how a partnership with Netflix is a win‑win situation. North of North is really just the latest example there.

5811 However, there are other ways to incentivize strategies that are already working, for instance, the top 10s on Netflix. Top 10 in Canada doesn’t mean it is a Canadian production, but it would certainly be easy enough to have a Top 10 Canadian production list. Co‑productions also help with discoverability, audience numbers and economic success.

5812 In conclusion, when it comes to Canadian content, we should be concerned with the wine, not the label. Many grapes are necessary to make a full‑bodied wine, and our vineyard needs to be generously fertilized. Education and opportunities need to be available to support new creators. Flexibility needs to be built into any point system. Canadian shows bring a unique perspective to universal themes that do appeal to a global audience and Canada needs a nimble system to maximize Canadian access to great Canadian content.

5813 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for your presentation today. Thank you for your submissions.

5814 I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Naidoo, to start with the questions for the Commission.

5815 Thank you.

5816 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. Thank you so much for being here today, and thanks for the presentation.

5817 MS. MACKLEM: My pleasure.

5818 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: You suggest a more broad‑minded approach in assessing the question, “What is Canadian?” to ensure voices that ‑‑ from all Canadian communities are heard.

5819 What concrete suggestions do you have on how we can broaden and modernize the criteria while still benefiting Canadian creators?

5820 MS. MACKLEM: I think that I'm a little disturbed by the discussions that I’ve heard about having a cultural criteria because I think that means so many different things when it comes to Canada.

5821 You know, one of the things that was mentioned earlier in the consultations was somebody said, “Well, you know, if there’s a picture of the CN Tower”. So there was a scene in The Boys this season where Atrian is in Toronto hiding from Homelander and we see the CN Tower behind him. I think there’s other reasons like Seth Rogen being the producer there that gives it a bit of a Canadian ‑‑ gets the Canadian tax credits, but I think that’s a little bit too narrow sometimes.

5822 So I think that anything that sort of wants to put that criteria in a box is going to be problematic.

5823 I’m thinking as well about, you know, things like coproductions, right. So I’m thinking about the coproduction between Canada and Ireland using Canadian crews, using Canadian showrunners, using producers and actors, et cetera. I think that we need to learn into sort of that more than trying to pigeonhole the cultural aspect of it.

5824 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So I just want to flesh that out a little bit more.

5825 You question whether the current point system for Canadian certification is an objective test for Canadian‑ness, for lack of a better term. In the workshops that the Commission conducted last March across the country, most participants actually said that one of the key things, in their view, that makes a production Canadian is the fact that Canadians are holding key creative positions like director and screenwriter on such productions.

5826 So what are your views on this and how do you think that the Commission could objectively incorporate other elements that reflect the concept of Canadian‑ness while also respecting Canada’s diversity?

5827 MS. MACKLEM: Again, I think it’s just leaning into the creator part of it, like who is actually working on this, as opposed to it having to fall into, you know, that’s not Canadian enough.

5828 So one of the examples this morning was about, you know, something that’s about John A. MacDonald is clearly Canadian while something about George Washington is not, but what if it’s a show that’s looking at British soldiers who are going up against Washington, right? So we’re getting that Canadian perspective from the writers, perhaps, the directors, the producers, the actors, et cetera.

5829 So I think that’s got to land into the Canadian‑ness.

5830 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

5831 In your presentation, you mentioned that discoverability should be left to the experts and you give an example of incentivizing strategies that are already working such as Netflix top 10.

5832 Do you have any other concrete suggestions on how the CRTC should incentivize the discoverability and also the promotion of Canadian content with regulatory tools that we already have at the disposal?

5833 MS. MACKLEM: Yes. I think that it has to be balance, right. So I think that there needs to be concrete evidence that, yes, we are increasing discoverability, we can show you that Canadian content is getting more hits, it’s getting more views, it’s moving up our top 10 lists, et cetera, not just in, say, Canada, but in the global market. I’m thinking of streamers and so on, right.

5834 So yes, I think that there should be regulations where they need to pay into our system and contribute to it, but I think that that could be balanced off against whether or not they could show that they are actively promoting Canadian content and Canadian material.

5835 So I think that sort of leaving discoverability up to them is a matter of saying, okay, “Well, how do you think you can do this?”. Like let them do the work on that, show that they’ve done the work, show that they’ve had results and then they’re rewarded by perhaps not having to contribute quite as much money because they’re contributing in that way.

5836 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you so for all your answers. That’s all my questions, and I hand it back to the Chair. Thank you.

5837 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

5838 And I will hand things over to the Vice‑Chair.

5839 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you so much.

5840 I just have a quick question. If you’re following the hearing so far, you probably heard a lot of conversations about the showrunner, whether it should be included in the definition, what it means, how it is relevant or not to one of the two linguistic markets, but you certainly ‑‑ in your presentation, you mention, you know, that we should be giving credit for having a Canadian showrunner.

5841 So how would you define the showrunner? Because currently the Commission doesn’t have a definition for that position, so how do you think it should be defined?

5842 MS. MACKLEM: I would define it as the person who has overall creative authority and management responsibility for a television program. Often, and almost always, the showrunner is the creator and an executive producer, but it’s different than a TV producer who actually works with the more physical aspects of the show.

5843 I haven’t actually heard anybody that’s really given, I think, a good explanation of what a showrunner does. So a show ‑‑ actually ‑‑ my Master’s thesis is actually about a showrunner, so.

5844 The showrunner, as I said, is often the creator, so they will bring the idea and so on, and they will usually have a ‑‑ you know, probably a three to five‑year arc for the story, okay. They will be in charge of staffing the writing room. They would be in charge of picking people for production, for overseeing directors, for overseeing the general tone of a show and then they might not write every episode, but they would write like the season arc. And then the writers’ room would also offer sort of suggestions about, well, let’s do this kind of an episode or let’s do that kind of an episode or I’d really like to explore this story and then the showrunner is going to be going to ‑‑ saying to them, well, that fits in. We can put this here, but we need somebody to hit this point of the story arc because this is the overall story that I want to tell over the course of a season.

5845 And so they have sort of their finger in all of the different pies, but they’re also very much involved with, you know, hiring at virtually every level.

5846 So they have a great influence on not only the feel and the themes and so on of the show, but also who is working on the show.

5847 Now, often when you see a show that goes longer, you’ll find that there will be somebody that will come out of the writers’ room to take over being showrunner and that showrunner will go on to do something else. But they will have basically worked their way up through the writers’ room to having that kind of responsibility. And it’s ‑‑ again, it’s a learning trajectory as they move into that role.

5848 So yeah, I mean, I think that a showrunner is vital, but I also agree with the people who’ve been saying this is really only relevant to television and there may be a commensurate role in the Quebec system that would also need to have that kind of involvement.

5849 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: And as you say, it may only be relevant to television and may only be relevant to the French ‑‑ to the English language market as well. So how do you suggest ‑‑ if we were to take on this idea of including the showrunner as one of the creative positions in the definition, how do you suggest we both provide maximum clarity and certainty because that’s what we like to do at the CRTC but, at the same time, acknowledge that it may not be a position that is relevant to the various genres, to the various markets as well?

5850 MS. MACKLEM: Right. This is actually one of the reasons I picked a wine analogy, plus I thought getting towards the end, you might want wine rather than potato salad, is that ‑‑

5851 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Bravo. This is a very good ‑‑ bravo.

5852 MS. MACKLEM: So I think you have to sort of acknowledge right up front that we’re dealing with like whites and roses and reds, right. We’re dealing with different things. And I mean, at the risk of complicating things further, it’s a complicated industry.

5853 I don’t think we can talk about ‑‑ just the same way we can’t talk about creative works and news sort of in the same way, we need to talk about, you know, drama versus documentary, kids’ programming, you know, versus Quebec language programming.

5854 I mean, I think everything ‑‑ not necessarily everything, but I think there needs to be different criterias (sic) for different genres. I think that’s super important.

5855 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much for your answer.

5856 Thank you. That’s all.

5857 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

5858 We have one last question from Vice‑Chair Scott.

5859 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

5860 So as the vice‑chair of helpful metaphors, I would like to commend your presentation. But my serious question is about your comments on incentives, and particularly I’m seeking your thoughts on how we can calibrate incentives. It’s the type of thing if we dial it up too much, I think there’s a risk that it could be extremely distortive. If we don’t dial it up enough, there’s the risk that we’re complicating the system but not actually changing any behaviour or producing any new outcomes.

5861 Are there any reference points you could give us that might help calibrate whether, from your international experience or, you know, any other ‑‑ any other incentives that we should be taking note of as we look to explore how to calibrate an incentive system?

5862 MS. MACKLEM: I mean, I think it is going to be a calibration and I think that, you know, flexibility and criteria and incentives allows for change in the industry, which is ‑‑ the change is ridiculous right now. Everything’s ‑‑ seems to be in flux, and has been for a while.

5863 So I think that it has to be tied into sort of looking at what they can actually demonstrate is the result of ‑‑ so I think it has to sort of ‑‑ try to put this ‑‑ I think the incentive has to be there, but in order to get the incentive they have to show that they’ve gotten the result, right.

5864 So like for the discoverability part, right, can you show that you have actually been able to increase the, you know, amount of eyeballs on Canadian content? And then I think that incentive should, you know, be greater for within Canada, perhaps. But even in a global market, right, I mean, I ‑‑ and again, I’m thinking about Squid Game, which came up in an earlier panel as well, right.

5865 You know, Schitt’s Creek has really done as much for Canada ‑‑ Canadian program as Squid Game ‑‑ well, maybe not quite as much, but a lot, as Squid Game did for Korea, right.

5866 So you know, that kind of discoverability also makes other countries want to come and do coproductions with us, which can only help our market as well. I don’t think that’s part of what they can show as the incentive. I’m saying that’s why we want the incentives. But I think ‑‑ yeah, I think they have to be able to ‑‑ there has to be something concrete that they can show that they are actually earning those incentives in order to offset, perhaps, regulatory amounts that they are required to pay.

5867 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much.

5868 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

5869 So we would like to turn things over to you for any concluding remarks.

5870 MS. MACKLEM: Thank you so much.

5871 And I would like to apologize for not being there in person, but I am not funded by anyone, so unfortunately ‑‑ this was a great alternative. So I thank you very much for allowing me to present in this way.

5872 I really think this industry is a moving target and a dynamic industry and you guys have a really difficult task in front of you. As I said, I think flexibility allows for some change within the industry and I think there should be a commitment to revisit any decisions, you know, probably within five years. Like let’s not leave it as long the next time before revisiting how these systems are actually working.

5873 I was kind of hoping you guys might ask me a little bit about IP rights, so I just wanted to sort of very, very quickly touch a little bit on that because that’s near and dear to my heart.

5874 I think Canadian copyright offers our creators a lot of unique things, not the least of which is their moral rights which, you know, as long as you’re not forced to waive them, they’re always going to have those moral rights which helps them to keep the Canadian flavour in their creations. I think that reversion rights should also be a part of it and they should be, you know, negotiated down quite slowly or quite ‑‑ or more soon than 25 years. And I also think that, you know, release windows are something that can be looked at as well, so maybe there’s an exclusive licence for a very short time and then, you know, we have the reversion rights, et cetera.

5875 But again, just thank you very much. I think anything that we can do to help with new creators is also very important, so I would also support that ‑‑ the points that were made about youth programming. That’s part of education. Building our talent pool and keeping them here is so important.

5876 And with that, thank you very much.

5877 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. And I know that you said that you would have liked to have been here in person. I can tell you we have a fantastic setup here in the room. It feels as though you’re here. You’re on two screens right in front of us, so thank you again for your participation.

5878 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

5879 I will now ask Kate Sinclaire to come to the presentation table.

5880 When you are ready, you may begin.

Présentation

5881 MS. SINCLAIRE: Excellent. So, good afternoon, Chair, Vice‑Chairs, and Commissioners.

5882 My name is Kate Sinclaire. I have worked in the adult industry for twenty years in Canada, primarily out of Winnipeg, Manitoba, and have worked in community sex worker rights organizing for approximately a decade. As of this week, I now hold a Juris Doctor with a focus on law and technology, though I must add that I am not quite yet a qualified lawyer.

5883 The opinions I express today are my own.

5884 So, I acknowledge that the last time that I appeared before this panel, I appeared in the capacity of a law student intern on behalf of Aylo. Aside from a few months independently researching the impacts of the Online Streaming Act, I am not affiliated with the organization nor any of its platforms or websites.

5885 My submissions today are instead informed by having worked in the overall film industry as an independent producer and director in both adult and non‑adult film capacities.

5886 So, I understand that we are to focus our submissions today mostly on key creative positions, but today, I must do that through the continued focus on paragraphs 78 through 80 of the Notice of Consultation that suggests that adult programming should no longer be recognized as Canadian programming.

5887 So, simply, it’s difficult to speak further about specifics of key creative positions when your cast, crew, and work may be excluded. So, we have to start from there ‑‑ with beginning with research on similar distinctions, and briefly touching on inaccuracies in paragraph 78, since you specifically touch a bit on future‑proofing, which has been discussed through this consultation.

5888 So, if the Commission does intend to make future‑proof policy, shedding adult programming that is based on a lack of qualified broadcasting undertakings that host adult content in the present moment means that, if in the future there is a broadcasting undertaking that hosts adult content that qualifies, our industry will be directly disadvantaged and forced to claw its way out of exclusion.

5889 So, on creation of the distinction between adult programming and the rest of programming in general, in the intervening time between my written submissions and today, I have consulted with others in the industry and researched the intersection of adult film, labour rights, and occupational stigma. So, the consensus has very much been that creating a distinction between adult programming and all other types of programming, is going to further socially and financially stigmatize workers and impede their ability to access rights and benefits. Sex workers have historically been barred from organizing by moves exactly like the one the Commission proposes.

5890 So, an example is particularly useful here. Most of us are familiar with the Screen Actors Guild, which is a sectoral‑style union for actors in the United States. When adult performers in California in the 1990s attempted to join the union, SAG recoiled, based on stigma toward the industry, and created two new headings required to join the union, including ‘acting’ and ‘professional acting’, with a further distinction that actors’ work must have been in what they labelled ‘mainstream entertainment’, specifically excluding adult programming from representation.

5891 The result was that workers seeking to have the same workplace safety, pensions, health benefits, other guarantees in their jobs, were locked out and had to start again from scratch. So, I think of what our world would look like today in our industry, if that decision hadn’t been made.

5892 So, the concept of mainstream entertainment versus adult programming implemented by SAG is the same kind of distinction that the Commission would be giving life to in excluding adult programming from its definition of Canadian programming. This move will be seen by all Canadians, and validate and encourage stigmatization that many of us in the workers already face. We are Canadian, and we are part of this community and this culture.

5893 So, on the topic of economic stability and policy imperatives in paragraph 78, there are two ideas underpinning the de‑regulation of adult programming ‑‑ first, that it doesn’t require regulatory support for economic stability, and that there is “no industrial or public policy imperative requiring continued recognition” of adult programming. Both of these conceptions are misguided and may actually centre myths, stereotypes, and stigma over the actual facts of the industry.

5894 So, on economic stability, there is an important distinction to be made between the success of large platforms that allow user uploads, like, say, YouTube, and the production companies and individuals that create those works. So, when the Commission refers in paragraph 78 to the industry not requiring support for economic stability, it should be very cautious in considering what it sees as the industry. Is ‘the industry’ the individual creatives telling Canadian stories? Or is the industry only massive multinational undertakings that host content made by those Canadians?

5895 This brings me to my final issue that wraps up my submissions ‑‑ the comment in paragraph 78 that there is “no industrial or public policy imperative” that requires the Commission to continue to view adult programming as Canadian programming.

5896 So, sex workers know that there is public policy imperative in viewing our work as work. Those imperatives include ensuring that we have equal and unqualified access to labour rights, creative expression, and recognition of our skills as valuable to society. It’s when we are told that we are devoid of content, not creative, not valuable, that policy decisions can encourage violence or abuse against members of our communities. So, it’s only when we are not considered valuable members of the public that there is no public policy imperative.

5897 If allowed to remain part of Canadian programming, the key creative position descriptions, specifically as presented by the Independent Broadcast Group earlier today, are particularly useful, considering the staffing requirements on sets. However, I am reluctant to endorse the requirement of Canadian cultural elements in Canadian programming because of the possibility of certain values being prioritized, which I refer to in my written submissions.

5898 So, adult industry workers and sex workers generally are part of your community and your culture. You have one sitting right here in front of you and asking you not to do this. Simply, the point is that work is work, media is media, and film is film. There is no distinction required.

5899 But I am happy to take any questions.

5900 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very for your presentation. Congratulations on your J.D.

5901 I will turn things over to Commissioner Paquette.

5902 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hi, Ms. Sinclaire, and thank you very much for your participation and for the very unique point of view that you bring to this consultation.

5903 I understand what you say about the protection of the workers, the importance to regulate, just not to isolate the industry. But if we consider that most of the adult content broadcasters and online services are exempted because they don’t reach a 25 million threshold to be regulated, and considering that broadcasters that would rely on CRTC certification to meet their regulatory obligation by and large no longer rely on adult programming, what is the policy rationale for the CRTC to certify such content?

5904 I kind of have three questions related to this theme. First of all, what would be the policy rationale? How dependent is the adult entertainment model on being certified as Canadian content broadcast? And, how does the CRTC certification impact the production and distribution of adult content in Canada?

5905 And I can repeat the questions if ...

5906 MS. SINCLAIRE: When you said three‑parter, I thought, I’m going to write them down. So, specifically the policy ‑‑ kind of the policy reasons for keeping adult programming are exactly as I was outlining ‑‑ that the distinction doesn’t need to be made. If, for example, there aren’t qualified broadcasting undertakings at the moment, then okay; then it’s not regulated by ‑‑ like, de facto.

5907 The fact that there isn't something right now doesn’t preclude something later coming down the pike, basically, like I was outlining, but it’s possible that there could be. I thought about this earlier, trying to make another metaphor, thinking about shopping in a drugstore and the availability of various products, and, you know, some places have sexual wellness products on the shelf, across from the baby diapers and things like that.

5908 I’m not saying necessarily that there are broadcasting undertakings that would host both adult and non‑adult content, but it could happen, especially given the way that various verification elements have been going with the internet, making sure who your viewership is. So, the fact that those kinds of undertakings could come up.

5909 The second part of that is if those undertakings did come up that posted both types of content, those undertakings would be forced to basically marginalize adult programming in favour of material that would fulfil their Canadian content requirements. So, it would just ‑‑ the availability of any Canadian adult programming wouldn’t help at all. So, it actually disincentivizes those undertakings from partaking in any adult programming.

5910 So then, the second question ‑‑ how dependent is the industry ‑‑

5911 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes.

5912 MS. SINCLAIRE:  ‑‑ on being certified?

5913 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Would it make a difference?

5914 MS. SINCLAIRE: Would it make a difference? So, from my personal experience, the Canadian industry has very much benefitted from certification. Myself as well, in producing films, I very much benefitted from the CRTC requirement for television. It has meant that my films, which were previously marketed online through Canada and the United States, were picked up by Canadian broadcasters to fill that need, that are feminist, that are queer, that are ‑‑ you know, various folks’ bodies represented Canadian content, and then, that broadcaster marketed it to the rest of the world, so that people were noticing Canadian style and that sort of thing. So, it’s exactly as any other industry in the Canadian mediascape.

5915 So, it depends, when you ask how dependent, because there are a lot of various facets. A lot of people work as individual content creators. There are some studios. Just like any other sort of media, or comparing YouTube to Netflix, it’s got the same challenges and the same differences. So, the parts that are related to individuals creating content are less dependent, studios more dependent. That’s my response there.

5916 And last, the ‘how does the inclusion impact?’

5917 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes. It’s a bit similar to the preceding question, but how certification impacts the production and distribution of adult content, considering that most of the players will be exempted?

5918 MS. SINCLAIRE: Yes, of course, most of the players will be exempted. I completely understand that, and I think that that kind of highlights the point ‑‑ then, why is the move required, even? To kind of make a statement? And that statement says a lot. And if it’s not required, then why make it? It feels kind of like it is a policy move that is a policy move that’s aimed at discouraging the industry as a whole. And that doesn’t sit very well with a lot of producers, you can imagine.

5919 So, yes, the exclusion specifically impacts us socially in Canada. I am currently doing two things, studying for the bar and also programming a porn film festival, basically, out of Calgary that is under an established film festival there that exists. This is our first year where we have had no Canadian submissions, and it breaks my heart that we’re kind of losing parts of industry, and we need to make sure that there’s folks who are connected, for so many labour reasons. Basically, if people are experiencing troubles on set, or if they want to learn and grow their skills, it’s really important to have a community, and I’m very, very worried that the impact of this kind of symbolic motion would be detrimental.

5920 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. You just mentioned that there is a wide range of type of production, from individual to studios, and you mentioned that your intervention applies to adult production studios and not to individual creators working primarily on tube sites, cam sites, you say, and membership services like Only Fans. Like, you are not aiming at these kinds of productions. But where should we draw the line between amateur productions that should be more considered like user‑generated content, compared to professional studio productions?

5921 MS. SINCLAIRE: That's a great question, and I think it’s the same question that folks have been asking about any other tube site kind of thing ‑‑ like YouTube, again, to bring that in, versus Netflix. There are YouTube productions that are substantial. There are entire crewed productions that are basically content.

5922 So, I think that the line could exist, based on similar guidelines that are being proposed with the new key creative positions. Like, how many roles are there? You know, is there a director, a screenwriter, a production designer, director of photography? If it’s got a crewed staff, then it would qualify.

5923 However, if it is like much of the material that is on Only Fans or other sites where people are individual creators, it might be maybe two people or just the individual performer themselves.

5924 So, I think looking the amount of people that are involved in the process can be a really useful tool, but also, if the ‑‑ it depends on the platform that’s hosting, too, because there are very few ways to determine, basically, how many people were involved in production. But I think those who volunteer up their work as Canadian content ‑‑ that might be a better way to look at it.

5925 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And you bring the idea of discoverability of adult content on online platforms. Are viewers looking for specifically Canadian adult content, and if we regulate and impose discoverability requirements, again, I don’t see many platforms that would qualify and have to respect the requirements. So, are we aiming at some players here? Is there something that you are looking for with this suggestion?

5926 MS. SINCLAIRE: I've always struggled with the discoverability, specifically because algorithmically‑driven sites will tend to recommended things geographically that maybe a user is not into, and so, the kind of balance there is that Canadian productions could be basically demoted in an algorithm. So, I’ve always pictured the idea of static promotion and that sort of thing. Many other intervenors have brought up that notion ‑‑ that things could be static in a Canadian kind of container.

5927 That said, there’s difficulties in this for Canadian filmmakers. There’s security and privacy concerns. There’s a lot of issues that some folks may not want to. So if we’re going with the mandatory model where we discussed that, you know, if it’s an individual creator, that could be very problematic; whereas, if it’s a studio, there’s published locations, that kind of thing ‑‑ that’s less problematic. So, I think again that volunteering kind of method could be really, really useful.

5928 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. No more questions.

5929 MS. SINCLAIRE: Of course.

5930 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: No more questions.

5931 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

5932 Let’s go to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

5933 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much, and thank you for being here. You’re a busy lady, and so, taking the time from your studying to come and present before us is well appreciated ‑‑ and impressive.

5934 I have two quick questions. I am curious whether you are aware of how adult content is considered in other jurisdictions? I am thinking of the U.K. in particular, because they do have a point system. So, I’m trying to get a sense as to whether, if we were not to include adult content, ‑‑

5935 MS. SINCLAIRE: M’hmm.

5936 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ would we be an outlier when comparing to comparable markets? And so, I don’t know if you’ve got that information.

5937 MS. SINCLAIRE: I don't have that particular information, though I can speak ‑‑ especially programming this film festival as we speak. There are multiple jurisdictions around the world, specifically Nordic countries and that kind of thing, that actually fund specifically the films that ‑‑ there are, I believe, two in the program that I’ve put together, of eight films, that have received public funding. So, they are considered to be media. They are considered to be public cultural pieces, and specifically watching these ones, like, yes, there is culture in them.

5938 And I know that that, for some, might seem a stretch, but I’ve been steeped in this for 20 years, so you do see that, like, there are styles, there are cultures, there are ways that people exist. So, I will ‑‑ I can look ‑‑ very much look into the U.K.’s system, but otherwise, I am not aware of anywhere else that makes the distinction and specifically exempts adult.

5939 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: You don't recall which Scandinavian country in particular?

5940 MS. SINCLAIRE: There was Sweden, and I’m not sure if ...

5941 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: And Denmark probably ‑‑ something like that.

5942 MS. SINCLAIRE: Yes. And I can’t call the other ones to mind right now, but I can update you, if I ...

5943 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Okay. Yes, but it’s useful to know that ‑‑

5944 MS. SINCLAIRE: M’hmm.

5945 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ there is already best practices out there that we could eventually consider as we are thinking about these issues.

5946 My second question is around AI, ‑‑

5947 MS. SINCLAIRE: M’hmm.

5948 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ and you’ve raised concern around AI and the role it can play, ‑‑

5949 MS. SINCLAIRE: M’hmm.

5950 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ and the threat it can become to labour rights. So, in your view, what kind of guardrails are standards? Should the Commission consider to make sure that employment opportunities for human creatives ‑‑

5951 MS. SINCLAIRE: M’hmm.

5952 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ are not negatively impacted by the use of AI tools. I’m not talking about generative AI; that’s something else. I’m talking about content using AI as a tool.

5953 MS. SINCLAIRE: So, to clarify, I know in my submission I talked about body prints ‑‑ so, an actor actually being able to sign off on use of their likeness, basically. Is that the kind of tool? Or are you talking about, like, editing tools and other creative ‑‑

5954 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: It could be both. I mean, I’m more interested in understanding the type of regulatory guardrails ‑‑

5955 MS. SINCLAIRE: M’hmm.

5956 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ we should be considering.

5957 MS. SINCLAIRE: Yes. Okay, so, the type of regulatory guardrails that should be considered are very much, ‘Is there a human involved in the process?’ Basically, is this an AI ‑‑ and with programming the film festival, I had this because I had a completely AI submission ‑‑ and is that AI based on a consenting person who provided their likeness, or is it completely animated? Was there anyone involved in the, I guess, set‑up of that AI and the programming, or was it just the AI development that did it? I think that, once there is an actual human in the process, that could be the guardrail for use of AI.

5958 So, yes, an editor using an AI tool to say, ‘Hey, cut this in five‑second chunks after you hear the snap of the slate’ or something like that, that’s a fine use because that’s an editor doing their job, whereas, if it’s, you know, just asking an AI, ‘Hey, create this,’ I don’t think that ‑‑ even if that individual who wrote the prompt is Canadian, I don’t think of it ‑‑ if the AI published the entire overall work, that that should be then considered Canadian content.

5959 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you so much. You did a very good job in your intervention.

5960 MS. SINCLAIRE: Okay.

5961 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: So, thank you very much.

5962 MS. SINCLAIRE: Thank you.

5963 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and we would like to turn things back over to you, if you would like to add anything to the discussion?

5964 MS. SINCLAIRE: Not much to add, but I do very much hope that, especially given that the highlight has been that there are no undertakings that really would be affected by this and that the exemptions would apply, I do hope that the symbolic nature of just continuing to recognize adult programming as Canadian programming, and the labour, culture, and kind of magic that goes into the creation of it, remains intact.

5965 Thank you very much.

5966 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you again for being here with us.

5967 MS. SINCLAIRE: Of course.

5968 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will reconvene tomorrow at 9 a.m.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajournée à 15 h 22 pour reprendre le vendredi 23 mai 2025 à 9 h 00

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