Transcription, Audience du 23 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

5970 Lionsgate Canada

6043 Anthem Sports & Entertainment

6162 Rogers Communications Inc.

6382 Canadian Media Producers Association

6566 Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada

6666 Friends of Canadian Media

6769 Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec/ Guilde des musiciens et musiciennes du Québec/ Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma/ Union des artistes

6930 Forum for Research and Policy in Communications

6998 Larue Entertainment

Transcription

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

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le vendredi 23 mai 2025 à 9 h 00

5969 THE SECRETARY: Good morning everyone. We will start this morning with the presentation of Lionsgate Canada. Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin.

Présentation

5970 MS. HARRIS: Madam Chair, Commissioners, and Commission staff, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on the important subject of definition of Canadian content. My name is Emily Harris, and I am EVP, Business and Legal Affairs, at Lionsgate Canada, and I am joined today by Jocelyn Hamilton our president of Television.

5971 Before we begin our substantive submissions, we wanted to ensure that the Commission was aware of the longstanding history that Lionsgate Canada has in the Canadian entertainment industry, not only as evidence of our commitment to Canadian content, but also our deep understanding of the Canadian and international entertainment ecosystem.

5972 Our corporate history is an amalgamation of major entertainment powerhouses throughout the years. Lionsgate Canada has strategic ties to Lionsgate globally and is the successor entity to a number of storied Canadian entertainment companies. We are the successor to Entertainment One and Seville Pictures, who previously acquired Alliance, Blueprint Entertainment, Barna Alper, and Paperny Entertainment among others. Through our extensive reach and scale, we have been able to deliver award winning, compelling new content for decades and have sold in over 180 territories worldwide.

5973 We are the proud producers and distributors of scripted shows such as Private Eyes, Cardinal, Burden of Truth, Mary Kills People, Ransom, and Rookie Blue and unscripted shows such as Border Security, Thunder Bay, and Arctic Vets, just to name a few.

5974 As a result, it is of paramount importance to our company that the decisions undertaken by the Commission as part of this consultation ‑‑ not only on the definition of Canadian content, but on how that content will be accessed ‑‑ reflect both a levelling of the current market realities but also a view to the future. We believe it is key that this process ensures that Canadian companies can continue on the path that we have been able to tread to date: the production and export of fantastic, home grown, Canadian content that allows our company to employ Canadians, continue to reinvest in the Canadian economy, and grow a strong and stable Canadian business that is at the table on a global stage.

5975 As you will have seen in our written submissions, in order to accomplish those aims, we feel strongly that any revised structure must ensure that Canadian independent producers are able to compete in global markets and, therefore, continue to support and reinvest in the Canadian economy; include clear, fair, consistent, and easily applicable metrics that prioritize Canadian economic investment and creative control and are additive, not erosive, of elements available within the system as it stands today; and foster accessibility and investment by ensuring Canadian programming created and owned by Canadian independent producers is commissioned and exhibited by traditional and online broadcasters.

5976 Ultimately, we would advocate that all revisions to the framework focus on three thing: one, simplicity; two, consistency with a system that is standardized across all funding agencies, broadcasters, and online platforms; and three, allowing for flexibility to achieve those goals.

5977 MS. HAMILTON: In terms of specific recommendations, we want to focus our oral remarks on three areas: firstly, a revised point system that is simple, flexible, and can cleanly be applied to all types of Canadian production; secondly, a clear requirement for an independent production expenditure; and thirdly, intellectual property control and a fair split of economic participation to ensure we continue to distinguish between true Canadian content programming and service production, which is equally important, but should continue to be considered a separate category within the framework.

5978 In terms of the point system and the definition of Canadian content, as you will have seen in our prior submissions, we strongly support the proposal to build flexibility by expanding to a 15‑point system.

5979 In keeping with this principle of flexibility, we are in support of the 80 per cent threshold proposed by the Commission for positions occupied by more than one person. But we would go one step further by eliminating mandatory positions and including a list of supplementary positions to select from once a minimum of six out of ten has been attained.

5980 Eliminating mandatory positions ensures a fair application of the points across all genres and ensures there is no discrimination against other key contributors outside of writers and directors. We also think the addition of supplemental positions is important because it reflects the bench depth that we have as a Canadian industry.

5981 For similar reasons, we would oppose the inclusion of a new category of showrunner within the point system. As you have no doubt heard from other stakeholders, this is not currently a credited position within the Canadian production industry and does not have a consistent definition. So adding this position would not be reflective of the Canadian production industry and would result in an unbalanced and inconsistent point system between productions, as those that do not employ a showrunner would be required to meet a different threshold, say, nine out of thirteen versus nine out of fifteen.

5982 We agree with other stakeholders that it is of paramount importance to ensure minimum levels of commissioning and production expenditure tied to Canadian content. Without original commissions by all platforms in this country, we risk being lost in the global environment, and the Canadian audiovisual industry will likely erode, with productions only done in service of foreign stakeholders.

5983 Our written submission outlined our proposal to maintain CPE at the same overall percentage as are currently in place. We also support the Commission's proposal that PNI could be eliminated, so long as it is replaced by a mandated independent production expenditure requirement of no less than 75 per cent of CPE tied specifically to content produced by independent Canadian production companies. This will ensure continued positive economic impact and reinvestment of those contributions into the Canadian economy.

5984 As many stakeholders have submitted, Canadian ownership of intellectual property and exploitation rights must be maintained as a mandatory pillar within the certification process.

5985 In order to ensure that we maintain both robust Canadian content creation as well as a service production sector, a mandatory component of the CanCon framework should be that Canadians have control not only over the creative component of content, but also over its present and future monetization. To that end, we recommended that the IPE requirement outlined previously should be met only where intellectual property rights in programs are fully Canadian‑owned and a meaningful economic interest ‑‑ both in production budget allocations and back‑end entitlement ‑‑ is held by a Canadian production company. The remaining 25 per cent of the CPE requirement could then be subject to the give‑and‑take model as put forward by the Commission.

5986 MS. HARRIS: We appreciate that you are hearing from many stakeholders, often with competing viewpoints, and greatly appreciate the ability to make our recommendation and the opportunity to share our comments regarding the Commission's consultations on a modernized definition of Canadian content.

5987 We would end by saying that this process is long overdue and the industry has been in a state of flux and uncertainty while this process is ongoing. We would urge the Commission to make and implement these changes as quickly as possible to reinstate stability in our regulatory model and to ensure that the Canadian industry is as well situated as it can be to navigate challenging economic times and be prepared for a bright future.

5988 We welcome any questions you may have about our proposals.

5989 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much to Lionsgate Canada for your submissions. Thank you for being here with us to kick off day seven of this hearing.

5990 I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

5991 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for your presentation. We don't have a lot of time, so I'm going to try to be quite focused, and I will focus on IP, because you did make some very concrete proposals in that respect.

5992 So, given your experience negotiating with major streamers, how do you see balancing the retention of Canadian IP rights with the need for flexibility in partnerships or distribution models? And I was wondering if you could talk in particular about licensing windows and the role they play in your discussions with foreign partners. Have you used specific licensing models? And to what extent do they contribute to success of the productions?

5993 MS. HAMILTON: I think that's a great point. Licensing windows are key. And that is because this business is really a long‑tail business. It's years and years and years of content that we all hope has a lifespan that moves on, so these windows are key. Obviously, the initial window is very important with your initial commissioning broadcaster.

5994 But I can use a recent example of some of our Canadian shows that were on a linear broadcaster here in Canada and then, since the initial five‑year licence period is over, it then has moved onto Netflix and a brand‑new audience is now seeing these shows five years later. I've had texts and calls from people going, Oh, I just saw your name on Ransom or Mary Kills People ‑‑ I've never seen that show.

5995 And so we hold the rights to those shows, and therefore, every window that we get gives us an opportunity for new audiences, a new way for it to all of a sudden become popular. It's in the top 10 for a couple of weeks, and you all of a sudden have new eyeballs and new opportunity. And then however long that particular period is, you'll get another window after that. And so, again, if we didn't own the IP fully, we would not be in control of those windows. And so that's why it's so key long term.

5996 Because the other piece of the puzzle here in Canada is that the funding mechanism for funding a production is a puzzle. We put all the pieces together ‑‑ and thankfully we have great funding mechanisms like the CMF and tax credits and things like that. But it is a puzzle. And as a distributor, we also put up risk money to sell it internationally.

5997 And so the long tail here is that you're working to recoup your investment as well or, if another independent producer has a distributor, they're still recouping that investment money; whereas in the United States, most often one platform is paying for the whole thing. And that's very different. And so we need to have those windows, and the ownership is a big piece of that.

5998 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Maybe that's a good segue to my next question. How do you respond to arguments that for larger‑scale productions ‑‑ I'm just thinking of North of North, for example ‑‑

5999 MS. HAMILTON: Mm‑hmm.

6000 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ financial risk is disproportionately shouldered by foreign partners, making full Canadian partnership less realistic?

6001 MS. HAMILTON: I'm not sure the North of North example ‑‑ because it was CBC and Netflix, so ‑‑

6002 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Yeah, maybe it's a bad example, so but how do you navigate situations where you've got a foreign partner that comes in that puts on the table more money? How do you balance that in terms of still making sure that there's full Canadian ownership? What's the negotiating tension there?

6003 MS. HAMILTON: So that's what it currently is. And our view on this is that we continue to work how it currently is. So if we had a Canadian broadcaster and a US broadcaster, they're coming in at what we call a licence fee. They're bringing a licence fee to the table for the right to air it on their network or platform. But the ownership stake sits with us for the long term; right? And they're used to that now, and we should continue to have that be the case. It also makes sure that the economic benefit long term stays in our country ultimately. And so I think that's what we have to fight for, to be honest, so that it doesn't end up in a foreign ownership long term.

6004 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: So, still on IP, we had the Motion Pictures of Canada coming in, and they suggested a tiered or graduated IP requirement with higher thresholds for lower budget or mid‑budget productions as a way to recognize different risk profiles. I would be interested in knowing your views on that particular idea.

6005 MS. HAMILTON: Well, so when we were talking about the CPE requirement, which I think is really important, the 25 per cent piece that I mentioned ‑‑

6006 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Yeah.

6007 MS. HAMILTON:  ‑‑ is where a tiered or a different type of CanCon could be allocated. That is the section. So long as, our view is, the majority ‑‑ 75 per cent ‑‑ is independently owned. And perhaps in the 25 per cent you could have newly formed partnerships that sit in that piece. Again, it should be Canadian content, but it could be in, you know, a more flexible area of the 25 per cent. That's our view.

6008 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Let's move on to the CPE framework. So in your intervention, you indicated that CPE should remain at the same overall levels as are currently in place for comparable broadcasting groups. Should the Commission extend and apply the same levels to foreign online platforms? And if so, what criteria should we use to determine that contribution?

6009 MS. HAMILTON: It is our view that it should remain consistent, as we said, simple, consistent, and flexible. So that consistency should be across all platforms.

6010 Since CPE is a percentage of prior‑year revenue currently, and on the linear channels here, broadcasters, you know, their revenue is coming down. So a percentage of a revenue coming down is therefore going to be less; hence why we believe it should remain at the same percentage. But by adding new platforms, you're going to hopefully get back to what it was and then some from a growth perspective.

6011 What the criteria should be is based on the Canadian revenue that those platforms make in our territory, our airwaves, our territory, what they make and the percentage of prior‑year revenue. And I'll leave it up to the Commission to decide how that's calculated.

6012 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you for this. I know my colleagues have questions, so maybe I'll move on to something else. Some intervenors are calling for discoverability requirements to be imposed on streamers as part of their contribution to the Canadian system. Any views on that idea, and especially how it would work and whether, you know, this is something based on your experience streamers would entertain as a feasible idea?

6013 MS. HAMILTON: I think, again, if I'm going to go back to our key pillars of simplicity, I think the CPE should be about commissioning content, and therefore, producers have the opportunity to produce quality content. Obviously, it's helpful if it's on the main page, which is the marketing discoverability, if it's on main pages. If we've made great content, it would end up in the top 10, let's hope.

6014 But you can't ‑‑ you know, I don't think you can force that. And I certainly wouldn't want it to be a piece of the CPE going to that. That is part of their business model. If we're making great content, it should allow itself. I did hear one intervenor say maybe there's a top 10 for Canadian content. Sure, that would be great as well. But that wouldn't ‑‑ that's a piece of their business model for marketing their content. It would be great if that happened.

6015 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. That's all. Thank you.

6016 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I'll turn things over to Commissioner Paquette.

6017 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hi. Regarding the point system, some intervenors, like AQPM or Québecor, stated that the flexibility allowed by their current co‑venture model is effective enough to support international partnership. On your side, you propose a new model of point system which gives, you suggest, more flexibility. I guess my first question would be: do you think the actual model does the job? And if not, why do you think it's important to bring more flexibility at the level of the definition itself?

6018 MS. HAMILTON: The first question, about the model ‑‑ well, it's kind of combined with the second, I suppose.

6019 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes.

6020 MS. HAMILTON: So, the reason we think there is an opportunity for expansion is because there are lots of different genres in the production community. There's unscripted, there's scripted, there's documentary, there's animation ‑‑ like there's lots of different genres that we want to ensure continues to grow and expand. And so this would allow for being able to pick and choose out of a larger amount, would allow you to make sure that more genres would be ‑‑

6021 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And is it your position that the current model does not cover well enough for those different genres?

6022 MS. HAMILTON: That, and I think I was mentioning that, you know, there are lots of incredible talent in our teams, our production teams, that ‑‑ you know, production designer and different heads of departments and things that should be seen as important. And that allows for other genres where perhaps you don't have as much writing in certain genres, unscripted documentary, et cetera.

6023 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Oh, yeah, okay.

6024 MS. HAMILTON: You know, you'd have other opportunities.

6025 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. I understand.

6026 And you were discussing with my colleague about CPE contribution. You state that CPE should directly support Canadian‑owned IP and independent producers. In your view, should expenditures ‑‑ as an example, training, professional development, promotion ‑‑ also be eligible for CPE calculation? Or would that risk diluting the intended economic benefits of Canadian production companies and rights holders?

6027 MS. HARRIS: Yeah, I think that we would take the latter position. I think training programs are fantastic. We ourselves, you know, support programs through the CFC and other areas. You know, ensuring good training and a solid base of talent in the country is beneficial for all stakeholders. But we think that's separate and something that, you know, good citizens of the Canadian entertainment economy are already doing. That should be a separate contribution and separate and apart from a CPE, which should really be focused on commissions on screen.

6028 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay, thank you. No more questions.

6029 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for your presentation, and thank you for the discussion. We'll turn things back over to you if you'd like to add anything.

6030 MS. HARRIS: Yes. Well, firstly, thank you so much for your time. You've been quite engaged with us and with other stakeholders, and we're thankful for your smart and thoughtful questions.

6031 In closing, as we noted previously, we think the most important thing for the Commission to focus on as you issue your revised framework are the three pillars that we've mentioned: simplicity, consistency, and flexibility. So we urge you to ensure that the go‑forward system is focused on simplicity, is standardized across all funding agencies, broadcasters and online platforms, ideally with limited exceptions or genre‑specific complexities built in, and a system that allows for and prioritizes flexibility to achieve those goals, and flexibility that drives the goals of the Broadcasting Act, not flexibility that opts out of the goals of the Broadcasting Act. We need to balance protecting our cultural sovereignty and ensuring both sustainability and growth of the Canadian audiovisual industry.

6032 We urge you to make and implement changes from this consultation and on an ongoing basis as quickly as possible so that we can reinstate stability in our regulatory model and alleviate the current wait‑and‑see mentality that exists in the industry today. We want to continue to be part of a robust industry positioned for success today and for years to come.

6033 So much of this system has worked, and the regulatory regime is what has built it into what it is today. We don't want to lose that. But we need to continue to build and grow by evolving a system in a way that lets companies like ours continue to produce and export fantastic Canadian content.

6034 Thank you for having us.

6035 MS. HAMILTON: And I'd like to just make one comment that isn't in relation to Lionsgate Canada but is in relation to a professional background. I was in the kids' industry for many, many years, both on the production side and on the broadcast side. And right now, it is very sad for me to see the kids' industry's demise. And I know many other people have spoken about it, because it was at one time the pride of this country, making and growing businesses in the kids sector and exporting it all over the world. Internationally, they would come to this country to get their shows ‑‑ to get the creatives of our country working for them, and it was the beacon.

6036 And it’s sad to see, since ‘Let’s Talk TV', basically, it go down. Yes, there’s shift in eyeballs for kids, but I think it behooves us as an industry to support the next generation of audiences and make sure that we have Canadian kids watching our programs for years and years to come, even as they become adults.

6037 So, I just wanted to sorry that personally, and thank you for having us.

6038 THE CHAIRPERSON: Well, you are at the right forum for that, so thank you so much.

6039 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now connect to Zoom for the next participants.

‑‑‑ Pause

6040 THE SECRETARY: Good morning. So, we will now ‑‑

6041 MR. ASPER: Good morning.

6042 THE SECRETARY:  ‑‑ hear the presentation of Anthem Sports and Entertainment. Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin.

Présentation

6043 MR. ASPER: Good morning. I am Leonard Asper, and I want to start by thanking Jade Roy for her 75th hearing ‑‑ a fate worse than ‑‑ I’m not sure what, but ...

‑‑‑ Rires

6044 MR. ASPER: I don’t know what she did to deserve this, but it was probably because she’s good at what she does. But anyway, it’s an important landmark because it’s a sign of incredible resilience and hard work. When she showed up on the test thing, I was shocked. So, congratulations.

6045 I am Leonard Asper. I’ve been here probably longer than Jade. I’m the President and CEO of Anthem Sports and Entertainment. And with me today is another familiar figure, Anthony Cicione, who runs our Canadian operations ‑‑ both the channels and the distribution infrastructure.

6046 As you know, we are an independent broadcaster, producer, and distributor of content, and we are the proud owner, as of this minute, of three CRTC licensed discretionary services ‑‑ GameTV, Game+, and Fight Network. Since we were last in front of you ‑‑ as you all know, and thank you very much ‑‑ we have recently been approved to acquire Hollywood Suite’s four movie channels, which will mean the addition of 20 new employees to our group in Toronto, which will now feature eight channels broadcasting in Canada, and that adds up to seven ‑‑ and I’ll get to the eighth in a second. But it does highlight our decision and commitment to grow and invest in Canada. So, it is a good place to do business, and we thank the Commission, who has played a large role in that.

6047 The eighth channel we broadcast is, I think, unique, in that we acquired a U.S. channel, AXS TV, and instead of importing a U.S.‑owned channel into Canada, we brought our own Canadian‑owned channel into Canada, and AXS TV is getting significant traction, launching on Rogers and Bell Fibe, and we do have some ideas eventually to turn that into a Canadian channel in the sense of Canadian content, and to access the advertising market. But it has played a role in funding some Canadian content, so it’s been a successful strategy.

6048 As we noted in our written submission, generally we are supportive of the Commission’s proposals for this consultation. Having the opportunity to watch these hearings over the last 11 days has been instructive and has informed our view a little bit more, allowing us to evolve our thinking. But generally, with regard to Canadian content, we support the principle of the flexibility regarding the creative roles. Whether it’s 6 out of 10 or 9 out of 15, we think that’s a good idea.

6049 I think it was the Reelworld Screen Institute who pointed out that certain definitions of key positions need to be scrutinized so there aren’t any gaps in the new system. And we thought the Lionsgate comments were pretty instructive, and we support those as well.

6050 We just suggest not having too many ‘boxes to tick’ for every production, merely because some are smaller productions and it might be hard to find that many people to fill so many positions. So, there has to be, we think, some mechanism to account for the size of these productions and the number of roles that need to be filled in total.

6051 Getting a little closer to our business, because we’re not a premier production company ‑‑ we do production for ourselves and our own channels ‑‑ with regards to CPE, we’ve been talking about this for a few years now; we just reiterate what we have been saying, which is, all participants and all beneficiaries of the system, including the foreign streamers, should continue to pay their fair share as per the CRTC’s and government’s mandates. So, we urge the Commission to join with all the relevant parties, and stand firm on its position.

6052 Getting toward 'Programs of National Interest', that doesn’t affect us directly, but it is an area we’ve long advocated needs to change. Audiences, viewing habits and demographics are changing. The technology that that they use to watch and consume content is changing. The ad market is changing because of technology, and you’ve heard, I’m sure, many parties talk about the flood of ad inventory from streamers and digital participants. All of this is putting downward pressure on the major revenue streams of not only channels, but the Canadian BDUs themselves. So, everything has got a lot of pressure on it, and it does have a follow‑on effect on what broadcasters can pay in license fees to Canadian producers.

6053 And so, we just think the PNI thing is outdated and should reflect this changing landscape. It came at a time, years ago, when there was a sentiment that certain kinds of content would never get made without this requirement to make it, but I think that was based on a thesis that that has some superior ability ‑‑ drama in particular had some superior effect on Canadians and made them more Canadian, for lack of a better way of describing it. It shouldn’t be prescriptive that way. It shouldn’t be a ‘one size fits all’ requirement, but one that reflects the broadcasters’ challenges and does have this flexibility.

6054 So, reducing it to 20 percent, with more flexibility, and taking out the subjectivity and what I would call ‘genre‑picking’, would be something we’d like to see happen, allowing for programming and production decisions being made based on data what audiences want, based on data from interest shown by audiences, viewing trends, competitive pressures. You know, things come and go. For five years, comedy is hot. Then reality is hot. Then drama comes back, and docudrama ‑‑ dramedies come back. So, there’s trends that PNI doesn’t really allow broadcasters and producers to account for, and in some cases, it stifles the creative process because creatives’ judgment about what people want to watch is sometimes ahead of what people are actually watching.

6055 And I always come back to Survivor, which everyone laughed out of the theatre. When we all saw Survivor ‑‑ this reality show that we thought was the stupidest thing ever, honestly, and Global TV, when I was there, was forced to carry it, and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? ‑‑ things like that ‑‑ well, that’s a lot of drama in there. And so, drama comes in various forms. It comes through sports. Stories are told every which way now in Canada, in media. So, the point is, favouring one form of content over another defies the very principle that underlies the creative process.

6056 So, on intellectual property, we have some things to say here as well, because IP is valuable long‑term asset in today’s media world. The idea of producers kind of in this cycle of mostly living off services fees and rarely in a position to negotiate for ownership of the IP ‑‑ the ownership of the content they play a role in creating ‑‑ it puts them in this ‘live for today’ kind of world where they get the fees and the foreign ‑‑ and sometimes even the domestic broadcasters ‑‑ will now take into account the tax credits that the producer is getting and reduce the license fee accordingly, or assign part of it to become a minimum guarantee which has to be recouped but by the licensor of the programming, so that ends up putting less money in the producer’s pocket ‑‑ at the outset, at least.

6057 And the producer ends up owning no IP, has no recurring revenue, and can’t get financed to have enough capital to invest in its own content to end up owning the IP. So, they end up just getting tax credits, which is great ‑‑ they benefit from the dollar, and they serve a vital role in creating a lot of content for other people ‑‑ and they get no long‑term value out of that.

6058 So, there’s one way to do this, is to say that the producer is automatically entitled, in any service production, to an amount of the IP ‑‑ of the back‑end, however you describe it. And that has to be described; that’s a term of art, and it has to be described properly so the producer actually does get that 5 percent and, you know, there’s a lot of legal cases around that where these arrangements were in place, especially for recording artists, and they never saw a dime because what was eventually jammed into the cost base was so much that there was never any quote, unquote “profit”.

6059 But here, the government is putting in money and supporting a U.S. production or a foreign production. The government gets nothing back, and the producer gets nothing back for facilitating that. So, I would just suggest one example ‑‑ and I’m kind of adlibbing and off‑script here ‑‑ but that that some of that money buys IP in a project, effectively, and the government and the producer could split that IP. And so, the government would get a return on its investment, and the producer would have a long‑term asset. And the more IP a producer has, the more they build recurring revenue streams, and the more they can ultimately have cash flow to invest in the content they create, and legitimately buy up into the IP aspect of it.

6060 So, I think that’s a thing that requires some thinking because of the definitions that would be involved, but in the end, the Canadian production industry will be strongest by not only requiring foreign streamers to commission Canadian content, but also to create a long‑term asset for them.

6061 So, Anthony ‑‑ and by the way, I say this because Anthem has been interested in entering the production industry through acquisition, but every time we’ve looked at some of the production companies, their challenge is they’re living year‑to‑year and they don’t have these hard assets known as IP underlying them, and so, that’s, I think ‑‑ and you’re going to see some of them bought by U.S. companies because of that, because the U.S. companies own the IP already. So, I think that’s an important thing to look at a little bit more.

6062 Anthony, over to you.

6063 MR. CICIONE: Thanks, Len.

6064 MR. ASPER: For the reason we’re really here.

6065 MR. CICIONE: Thanks, Len. I’ll try to stay on script.

6066 Madam Chair, ‑‑

6067 MR. ASPER: I always get ideas in the morning.

6068 MR. CICIONE: Of course.

6069 Madame Chair, one of the things you mentioned in your opening remarks was ‘the flow of money’, and this is where Anthem would like to focus its presentation today.

6070 Despite cord‑cutting and competition from streamers, live and taped sports content, sports‑adjacent programming, game shows and scripted reality shows ‑‑ like Anthem’s TNA Wrestling ‑‑ often draw high ratings and digital consumption. They also tell dramatic stories, have compelling narratives about Canadians, and feature Canadians from all walks of life. These genres are at the core of future business strategies for many channels, and this content is extremely suited to multiplatform exhibition and engagement. In that sense, these forms of content are platform‑agnostic, but they are an essential aspect of linear viewing that coexists with digital in a holistic way.

6071 The recent report written by LG Ad Solutions, ‘Stadium to Screen: Streaming Live Sports in 2024’, noted that almost 92 percent of CTV users have watched sports at least once in the last year. A report from PwC called ‘I Stream, You Stream: Winning in a Video World’ found that accessing live sports keeps viewers from cord‑cutting. Among sports fans, 81 percent of those surveyed subscribed to cable, but 82 percent of these subscribers would trim or cut the cord if it weren’t for sports. In turn, most Canadian sports leagues would, we submit, be quite forthright that, while they may see a strong digital future, linear exposure is essential for them. And on the other side, the channels that have no access to the ‘big four’ or even sports like global soccer/football rights, cricket, et cetera, need to have a way to make it mutually beneficial to air and promote Canadian sports.

6072 We refer to the Commission’s responsibilities to both foster independent broadcasters (section (3)(3)) and be responsive to the preferences and interests of audiences (section (3)(3) again). We believe that these clauses of the Online Streaming Act give you the responsibility to take into account the forms of content produced by Anthem and others like us in the definition of Canadian content. However, despite the Commission’s proposal to update other definitions, you have not signaled your intent to review those which apply to us as part of the current consultation.

6073 We suggest the Commission should draw a clearer line between what many consider mainstream professional sports, like the NHL, NBA, and MLB, and content from Canadian leagues that are entirely homegrown or uniquely representative of Canada, including, for example, the Canadian Elite Basketball League, the Canadian Premier League, Canadian Rugby, Canadian Boxing, Judo, League1 Canada, Northern Super League, and the NWSL and PWHL when Canadian clubs are involved, but equally importantly, the U Sports ecosystem.

6074 This content would consistently air on our channels as audiences tune to us as the ‘the home’ for these events. These Canadian sports events would help drive destination and repeat viewing to our channels, and therefore, over time, help us to gain consistent audiences, have the opportunity for commercial success, and have cultural relevance while promoting our other Canadian programming.

6075 That is why we are recommending the CRTC establish a unique tier of Canadian content specifically for those independent Canadian sports leagues. This would be a category that acknowledges their value and allows them to access funding mechanisms, time credits, and CPE contributions that benefit other genres. Tax credits do exist; however, investment is required pre‑production to allow these events to be broadcast. As you know, tax credits are not available until long after the production has aired and the investment is deployed. While some other people borrow against these receivables, that too has a cost.

6076 To be clear, the content we and others are producing in this space is not secondary to the goals of the Online Streaming Act. It is central. Section 3(3) of the Act calls on us to serve the needs and interests of all Canadians. Independent Canadian sports leagues do exactly that, and if we could afford to expose them, it would be a significant part of us serving our mandate.

6077 Len?

6078 MR. ASPER: Thank you. I was actually just texting with a Canadian producer who just saw what I said. That’s so funny.

6079 So, again, thank you for giving us this opportunity and for being inclusive in who you allow to come before you because, as many have said, there are a wide variety of opinions and it is hard to bring them all together into a conclusive path. But your role is vital in this industry. You’ve had a positive impact for more years than I care to refer to, but the good news is, I know you have our country’s best interests in mind.

6080 One of the things is, some people spend a lot of time on lobbying, and some people have large departments. So, there are a lot of large companies here before you, and I just urge you not to let those interests drown out the independent companies like ours, who collectively still reach millions of Canadians every day. And as I have said before in these proceedings or other proceedings, there’s a whole sub‑tier of production and creative minds ‑‑ that don’t work for the ‘big seven’ or ‘big ten’ companies ‑‑ that work every day on these productions ‑‑ editors and writers and showrunners that are not, again, the big‑time ones, but we use a lot of these people for our productions.

6081 And so, when we go produce a basketball game, we’re employing 25‑year‑olds just out of school, and that 25‑year‑old later shows up as a 33‑year‑old working at Blue Ant or Marble or some larger company. So, all these companies like us, who employ a lot of people in the production industry ‑‑ and we do need some help, because it’s harder and harder. You know, we can’t do the big productions to get subsidized. So, that other layer of content is, first of all, artistically and culturally just as important, and it’s vital to many companies’, like ours, existence. This is part of the diversity of voices thing that we’ve always sought after.

6082 So, and by the way, I just want to say ‑‑ and I am concluding here ‑‑ the reason I’m not here is a great success story ‑‑ I’m not in Ottawa. We have a TNA professional wrestling show in Brampton today. We will put 3,000 or 4,000 people in the seats. It’s a Tennessee company we bought and moved to Canada. It’s now a Canadian‑certified production. It employs dozens of people in Canada, and is making people in Brampton very happy. So, but the point is, that kind of stuff ‑‑ we don’t get a dime for that. And I would just say, why not? So, you’ve got to just ‑‑ I think the world has to just realize it’s not all about gripping, sweeping dramas. If you want to subscribe to our social media on TNA, you’ll see drama. Okay?

6083 So, on that note, we hope for your support, and you take a holistic view of the contributors to the system and spread the wealth, spread the love. I wouldn’t say it’s wealth; that would be probably overstating it, but I think there is a fairness aspect that some people are benefitting a lot more from the system than others, and we all have the same job.

6084 So, thank you very much. I’ve overstayed my welcome here, but we would be happy to answer your questions.

6085 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for starting your opening by thanking our Hearing Secretary, because we like to take every opportunity to recognize her.

6086 Thank you for your submissions, your candour. I think you have actually anticipated many of our questions, so I think you got a little bit ahead of us there. I am glad that you did get to sports, because I think that’s where the Vice‑Chair would like to start. So, I’ll turn things over to him.

6087 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Indeed. Thanks very much. So, you’ve suggested that independent sports league content should be recognized and supported. I think, as part of that case, there’s almost two tests, and you’ve put forward an argument that that type of programming advances the public interest, but I think the other part of the test is that market forces wouldn’t be adequate to achieve it.

6088 So, why is sports content ‑‑ if it’s so popular ‑‑ not resolvable by market forces? What’s the need for regulatory intervention?

6089 MR. ASPER: Anthony, do you want to start?

6090 MR. CICIONE: Yeah. I think what we would say to that is, yeah, market forces do come into play, but I think sometimes you need a jumpstart to see the market forces will jump on board. So, I think you have to create per the demand of the people, but you also have to create the demand, at the same time. So, if you get a little bit of help at the beginning to expose the product and show that the product is good ‑‑ and there are certain leagues that are on the up‑and‑coming and there are leagues that could use the exposure ‑‑ I think it would create good programming for our channels, as we’ve said. And I think for the most part it would also a system where probably 99 percent of these productions would be a 10 out of 10 or a 15 out of 15.

6091 MR. ASPER: Yeah, and I'll give you some concrete examples. The Canadian Elite Basketball League is one ‑‑ because we broadcast the games. There’s a bit of a chicken and egg with sports in that, if the production looks like it’s shot on an iPhone ‑‑ you know, there’s one camera ‑‑ people are not going to watch it, necessarily.

6092 And the CBL is an example of a league where there’s a little bit uneven production. The actual product on the court is very high level. It’s got NBA players, the top Canadian players are in it, and it’s been improving significantly, and Anthem got involved as part of that. And TSN does air some of the games, but whether it’s an NHL game or an NBA game, you still need five or six cameras. You need an audio person, you need a video person, you need a truck and all those things.

6093 So, the costs as a percentage of revenue are much higher, but as the production ‑‑ you know, when you look at the ‑‑ you turn on CBL and you’re curious and you see something that looks like it’s being played in a high school gym, you kind of go by. You know, it looks like, oh, I’m watching a high school basketball game.

6094 If it suddenly starts to look good and it ‑‑ like has all the features of a serious sports production, you’ll watch. And so it’s ‑‑ and then three years later, you might not need a subsidy. It’s just getting the CBL, the Canadian Premiere League, some of the, you know, youth sports and stuff in front of people because nobody would touch it. You know, broadcasters wouldn’t touch it because it just didn’t look broadcast quality.

6095 So I think it’s just temporary and there could be time limits put on this, but I think there has to be some incentives because, you know, sports rights are getting super expensive and, you know, you’re either TSN and Sportsnet and you can afford to make one big bet on NHL or NBA and the rest of the sports leagues are finding there’s no rights fees available, so what they need is they need TV exposure. We’re not going to pay them a rights fee, but if they get TV exposure and they get ‑‑ and we can afford to produce the games, then we give them the ad inventory and that’s how they’ll make money and then they get more ‑‑ and so there’s no ‑‑ so as that rights fees world disintegrates, we need to spend the money on the production and they need ‑‑ and we give them the ad inventory.

6096 It’s a ‑‑ you know, you’ll see a lot more Canadian athletes get exposed and a whole level of stories being told that otherwise aren’t.

6097 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.

6098 So we’re seeing some notable steps by the big streamers into live sports content. I would assume that, you know, causes you some concern, but I’m wondering if that also creates some opportunities for you.

6099 Is there anything CRTC Regulations could do to facilitate partnerships and growth opportunities or, conversely, anything you’re worried about us doing that would kneecap you, for lack of a more elegant term?

6100 MR. CICIONE: I think my concern with the streamers is they seem to be, you know, raising the bar with regards to how much rights are being paid for the major sports. That’s my first concern. They’re doing things ‑‑ they’re paying for ‑‑ you know, a lot of money for things that normally wouldn’t cost that kind of money.

6101 I think the other opportunity with the streamers is there is an opportunity to do some co‑production together on certain events, especially if they can be ‑‑ use part of their contributions to work, for example, with Fight Network. Let’s say we wanted to do the Canadian judo championships and most of these athletes are going to appear in the Olympics in two years. So there’s an opportunity where if they would use some of their contributions with a Canadian network to showcase that kind of content, I think that could be beneficial

6102 MR. ASPER: Yeah, I just would add that the real threat probably is to Sports Center and TSN, if Amazon comes in and they theoretically could buy the NHL for Canada, right. Now, that’s why Rogers has, I think, nailed the rights down for 10, 12 years, but they aren’t going as much after the second‑tier sports. But again, as long as ‑‑ this is why I think the circle of the five percent or whatever ends up being contribution could go into it so it just makes the funds ‑‑ the capital F Funds that have support mechanisms, but to support things beyond their current mandate, like reality and sports and unscripted and game shows and things like that. That’s where I think they could help.

6103 But yeah, the other place they could help, I don’t know how to enforce this and put it in a regulatory framework, but is, you know, it sure would be nice if the Canadian Basketball League or the Canadian Premiere League or Rugby, you know, were to be exposed on Amazon globally. So distribution of Canadian sports would be something you might want to say ‑‑ I’m thinking off the top of my head. If you’re going to, you know, outbid a Canadian broadcaster for certain sports rights, then, you know, have a distribution requirement.

6104 So that gets complicated, but I think just sticking to your position on them contributing, putting money back in to funds that then support the smaller guys, you know, we’ll be happy to compete against them.

6105 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

6106 So you mentioned Rogers and we’ve got them coming up later today. So Rogers actually opposed counting sports content towards CPE. Could you speak just for a minute or two about the difference between your approach to sports and the sports you carry versus what Rogers carries and how that might lead to the different positions with regards to sports happening or not?

6107 MR. ASPER: So you said they were against ‑‑ so they were ‑‑ actually, I didn’t know. So they ‑‑

6108 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yeah. In their written remarks, they say that CPE should not be ‑‑ or sports content should not be the focus of CPE, that the framework should focus more on other forms of content.

6109 MR. ASPER: If I had to guess why they would say that, it’s because in their case, the sports they go after like the NHL probably either pay for themselves or have enough of a knock‑on effect that they don’t need the subsidy there necessarily and they do have other assets like CityTV and the ‑‑ all their other channels that probably do need that. So they may have ‑‑ you know, they have a natural ‑‑ not a nefarious conflict, but I think they would have ‑‑ they would want ‑‑ that’s where they would want to see the money directed because probably ‑‑ again, I’m speculating here. If people like us now can bring, you know, better production and bring more sports content onto the screen, we might be ‑‑ I suspect that might be seen as competitive so it lets ‑‑ it might be letting us catch up a little bit more.

6110 So I’m ‑‑ so I think they are ‑‑ I remember, you know, when I met ‑‑ when HBO shut down boxing, they stopped doing boxing, I remember the guy who was let go said they’d do better ‑‑ they need the money for Game of Thrones and they don’t need the money for boxing. So when you’ve got ‑‑ when you’re producing a lot of drama and you’ve got top flight sports product, they probably ‑‑ you know, they just want to direct the money there, I would think.

6111 I’m guessing. You can ask them, okay. Thank you.

6112 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Sounds good. Thanks very much.

6113 I’m going to turn it back to the Chair. Thank you.

6114 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you.

6115 And I will turn things over to Commissioner Paquette.

6116 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you.

6117 Just a quick question about an intervention that we had earlier this week. DAZN ‑‑ you know, the application, DAZN, the service ‑‑ DAZN strongly emphasized in its intervention that international sports services do not materially contribute to the Broadcasting Act’s objective and that, therefore, the CRTC should focus on categories other than sports.

6118 I was wondering, do you have any comments on this view?

6119 MR. CICIONE: I do, actually. I actually watched that presentation. I’ve actually watched a lot of the hearings over the last two weeks and stuff. Congratulations. We’ve worked together in the past, so I wanted to congratulate you on your appointment.

6120 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you.

6121 MR. CICIONE: Yeah. No, I don't agree with them at all.

6122 MR. ASPER: I thought she looked familiar.

6123 MR. CICIONE: I don’t agree with their stance at all. I think they have to contribute to the system. They’re in the system. They’re getting subscription revenue. They’re taking advertising dollars out of the market. They need to contribute like everybody else.

6124 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.

6125 MR. CICIONE: And they’re taking subscription dollars out and they’re buying content that we would otherwise have been able to buy because they’ve got a global audience, and especially they went heavy into the fight space and took away a lot of content that we would otherwise have been able to put on our fight network, so.

6126 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you very much.

6127 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm going to turn things over to Vice‑Chair Théberge and then we’ll wrap up.

6128 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Hi. Thank you.

6129 Just one quick question. So over the last few days, we heard that ‑‑ from many intervenors that you need to be successful at home in order to be successful online abroad. Given the increasing availability of sports content online, what is your strategy for ensuring that you reach future Canadian audiences where they are and are you currently in negotiations or do you plan on discussing distribution deals with online services?

6130 MR. CICIONE: Len, do you want to take that?

6131 MR. ASPER: Yeah, I mean, ideally, when is everywhere? Like when it’s just platform and ‑‑ you know, but you have to sort of take things as they come. For example, TNA is on Sportsnet. Our wrestling show is on Sportsnet and, you know, their quid pro quo is that they ‑‑ you know, you can’t have your own digital ‑‑ distribute it digitally for free what they’re paying for.

6132 That said, TNA has its own subscription product that is a digital product. We have other content on YouTube and other social media, and so ‑‑ but you know, people keep talking about broadcast as if it’s yesterday but, I mean, the importance of being on Sportsnet is ‑‑ you know, affects our business in every way because somehow there’s still a ‑‑ it’s not just credibility, but there’s ‑‑ it’s a driver of every other revenue stream to have content on TV.

6133 And you know, again, because we broadcast the basketball games, you know, they have an app, they have ‑‑ they stream their games digitally, but they need TSN and Game Plus to ‑‑ essentially, the linear system is as much a marketing vehicle as it is a revenue stream. So that’s why you see sports ‑‑ a lot of sports businesses saying ‑‑ lowering ‑‑ accepting lower rights fees because the presence on linear drives the other revenue streams, so ‑‑ and it drives sponsorship revenues and everything, too.

6134 So I’m not sure if I answered the question correctly, but I think the linear system is vital for sports properties. And now I’m drawing a blank.

6135 Did I answer your question, or ‑‑

6136 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Yes, you did. It's very interesting because, of course, we’ve heard ‑‑

6137 MR. ASPER: Yeah.

6138 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ from intervenors from other types of production where, you know, the main challenge is to follow the audience where the audience is going. And in some instances, they’re going online.

6139 What I’m hearing, it’s a different game, quote unquote, with the sports industry where linear television remains a very important part of the business model so we should not assume that the audience is moving online completely. So that’s important for us to know.

6140 MR. ASPER: Well, they're everywhere. It really is ‑‑ I mean, they might catch a ‑‑ they’ll watch a game, but then that’s why I say that sports is so much drama because the minute the game ends, all the drama starts. You know, the players are posting and it’s so ‑‑ it just moves over to social media and it runs through social media and podcasting and stuff all week.

6141 I mean, I cannot believe how much time people have to talk about wrestling like on a Tuesday at 10:00 a.m., but there are a lot of people, you know, engaging in wrestling and who’s going to beat whom. But no, that linear ‑‑ you know ‑‑ I’ll give you some great examples.

6142 UFC, the big dog of all fighting, combat sports, whether you watch it or not, they were getting big, getting big, and they started something called “UFC Fight Pass”. They were going to take all their content and put it online and, you know, not give their content to Fox or ESPN. Well, they tried that and I think they maxed out at 220,000 subscribers and, guess what, they’ve kind of shut down “Fight Pass” and they went back to Fox and ESPN and platforms. And there’s just something about it that people find the content and it’s taken more seriously, weirdly, by even younger people when it’s on TV even though they never watch it on TV. They end up watching it on some feed, but it’s a TV product.

6143 And by the way, it also ‑‑ in less developed markets like Europe and Asia and ‑‑ if you’re on Canadian or American TV, that makes you more credible and you’ll sell your rights to networks in Hungary or Turkey or even the UK and, you know, in India. You know, the minute we got Sportsnet, TNA become more interesting to people in India. And so it just where ‑‑ it’s a big wrestling market.

6144 So it’s a valuable part of it and since we can’t get hockey or football, never will, and the quality of the other leagues ‑‑ I mean, the Canadian professional other sports leagues are getting to be high quality because Canadians are getting better globally at those sports. You know, let’s get them on TV.

6145 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much.

6146 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I like that the Vice‑Chair worked in a sports pun. I think there’s some competition here between the Vice‑Chairs.

6147 At this point we’ll turn it back over to you. I know we’ve covered a lot of ground, but if there’s anything you’d like to add, now would be a good opportunity.

6148 Thank you.

6149 MR. ASPER: Well, I can't believe ‑‑ honestly, I believe can’t how much ‑‑ this is the longest conversation I’ve ever had about sports at a Commission hearing, so I’m pleased about that.

6150 But I think, Anthony, you would agree that game shows are another one that, you know, everybody forgets about but, you know, when, I don’t know, Family Feud is ‑‑ like none of those shows are ever getting shot in Canada except by the big players and we would love to have an opportunity to see ‑‑ like again, that’s another ‑‑ just don’t forget all this unscripted stuff and game shows because that employs Canadians. And I know people don’t look as if it’s high culture, but ‑‑

6151 MR. CICIONE: Yeah.

6152 MR. ASPER:  ‑‑ it is ‑‑ like when we can’t afford ‑‑ people like us can’t afford to do the bigger stuff, those drive our revenues.

6153 MR. CICIONE: Yeah, I'd like to thank the Commission for all the time. I think you’re asking all the right questions and doing a great job. Like I said, I’ve watched a lot of the hearings.

6154 And just to reiterate our point is I think, you know, a lot of theme the last two weeks has been about flexibility and we’re kind of on that theme where, you know, we’d like a little bit more flexibility within the genres so we can start to tape into some of those resources with the end result the incentives and outcomes being based on the framework.

6155 So thank you for your time.

6156 MR. ASPER: I'll just add one thing, finally, that this is extremely thoughtful and constructive set of consultations you’re doing by extremely informed staff and Commissioners, so this is a level of conversation that’s very welcoming because you guys have ‑‑ you know, everybody’s done their homework and we’re having a very constructive discussion and productive, I think. And we appreciate that you’re diving this deep into the issues.

6157 So thank you.

6158 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

6159 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

6160 We’ll now take a 10‑minute break and be back at 10:15.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 05

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 18

6161 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We'll now hear the presentation of Rogers Communications Inc. Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin.

Présentation

6162 MR. SHAIKH: Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair Eatrides, Vice‑Chair Théberge, Vice‑Chair Scott, Commissioner Naidoo, and Commissioner Paquette. My name is Dean Shaikh. I am the senior vice‑president, Regulatory Affairs, at Rogers Communications. With me today to my right is Colette Watson, president, Rogers Media; Susan Wheeler, vice‑president, Regulatory, Broadcasting; and Kale Stockwell, director of Original Programming. To my left is Calla Dewdney, director, Regulatory.

6163 We are pleased to appear today to discuss a modernized approach to the creation, distribution and definition of Canadian content. The path forward must be based on the health and sustainability of the entire Canadian broadcasting system. Canadian cable and media companies are the foundation of that system, and our strength is critical to the achievement of the first objective in the Broadcasting Act: effective ownership and control by Canadians. For these reasons, we are strongly opposed to any framework that continues to favour foreign streamers or that focuses exclusively on the independent production sector.

6164 The current financial obligations imposed on Rogers' media and distribution businesses are too high, too inflexible and significantly exceed the amount established for foreign streamers just last year. These excessive financial contributions are in addition to the significant costs associated with the carriage of Canadian programming services that are the focus of the Commission's June hearing.

6165 A new framework must provide equity and fairness by significantly reducing the financial burdens imposed on BDUs and broadcasters and increasing our flexibility to innovate and compete for audiences.

6166 We have proposed a framework for supporting Canadian programming that establishes a single financial contribution for each broadcasting ownership group. For Rogers, this would involve one financial commitment on behalf of both our media and distribution businesses.

6167 Our framework contemplates an overall contribution of no more than 5 per cent of our total combined BDU and media revenues. Under this model, Rogers proposes to focus on the following four categories: number one, local, community and third‑language news and information programming ‑‑ this would require an exemption from the community television policy; two, carriage of and wholesale payments to 9.1(1)(h) public interest services; three, direct expenditures on Canadian programming, which would include a commitment to independent production, such as an independent production expenditure; and four, contributions to a private certified independent production fund.

6168 As it is today, mainstream sports services, both traditional and online, would be excluded from this group contribution. Commission intervention is not needed to ensure these services continue to make meaningful contributions to the system.

6169 Canadian broadcast groups are competing directly against global streaming giants for subscribers and audiences. They are doing so while continuing to provide local news programming and wholesale fee payments to services of exceptional importance that no other participants in the regulated system are either willing or required to provide.

6170 In a marketplace where foreign streamers are rapidly expanding their share, Canada's largest broadcasting companies cannot continue to shoulder the entire burden of achieving all the policy objectives set out in the Act. The future of a Canadian‑owned and ‑controlled broadcasting system is at risk unless we are provided with the same regulatory and financial flexibility as the US streaming giants.

6171 Colette?

6172 MS. WATSON: Over the past decade, Canada's broadcasting industry has faced unprecedented financial challenges due to the growth of foreign streamers. We have experienced significant reductions in advertising revenues and cord cutting has accelerated. Canadian broadcasting companies will not remain competitive if their contribution obligations are not materially reduced.

6173 Maintaining historical financial requirements on us that are not imposed on foreign streamers will force Canadian companies to operate at much higher costs than these global giants who already enjoy business efficiencies that are not available to Canadian businesses. Our contribution requirement must be equitable to that established for foreign streamers.

6174 In 2023, the Commission said that it intended to adopt a

“standardized contribution framework that allows for specific requirements to be tailored to a particular undertaking or group of undertakings.”

6175 Unfortunately, this proceeding doesn't focus on standardizing the contribution framework across broadcast groups but has, instead, limited the focus to CPE.

6176 This is concerning because that approach ignores the considerable contributions that groups like Rogers make to Canadian programming and does nothing to address the inequity that exists today between massive American streamers and traditional broadcasting undertakings. The substantial contributions that Canadian groups make to the system, through both their media and distribution arms, must be considered together and incorporated into a new funding framework. It can't be done piecemeal as it is today with layers of rules and restrictions that don't reflect how we operate our businesses or where our investments are needed.

6177 Nous demandons au Conseil de faire évoluer son modèle de contributions et de le moderniser en permettant à des entreprises comme Rogers de simplifier et de cibler nos contributions et nos investissements dans la programmation canadienne. Ce modèle nous permettra de servir des objectifs stratégiques clés que ces entreprises américaines ne peuvent pas soutenir directement ou ne veulent tout simplement pas soutenir. Cela comprend la création de nouvelles locales et communautaires et le financement de services d'intérêt public qui créent des émissions pour diverses communautés, y compris les communautés autochtones et de langue officielle en situation minoritaire et les groupes méritant l'équité.

6178 Nous sommes convaincus que notre modèle est une prochaine étape indispensable dans la modernisation du cadre de contributions. Il s'appuie sur les décisions antérieures du Conseil concernant l'attribution de licences pour les grands groupes de propriétés de télévision et la réorientation du financement des canaux communautaires vers la production de nouvelles et d'information.

6179 The current complex and prescriptive approach to regulating the broadcasting industry's contributions in a “one size fits all” manner is no longer feasible nor good for the system. In a highly competitive marketplace, where multiple business models are being employed, Canadian companies must have the ability to invest in Canadian programming where they can have the most impact.

6180 Maintaining the status quo and requiring Canadian companies to make larger contributions to the system than foreign streamers will not help us stem subscriber and ad revenue losses or ensure a competitive market for television programming.

6181 MS. WHEELER: The flexibility inherent in our contribution model should also apply to the revised approach and definition of what constitutes a Canadian program. The expanded point system outlined in the Notice is suited more for foreign online streamers than Canadian broadcasters. While it increases the number of creative positions to 15, it would do little to enhance our flexibility or encourage collaborations.

6182 In order for the Commission's revised definition to truly benefit Canadian broadcasting undertakings, we believe that any program produced or commissioned by a Canadian‑owned and ‑controlled broadcaster should automatically qualify as Canadian. Adopting this approach would support the principle that Canadians should exercise creative and financial control over a Canadian production by ensuring Canadians retain a majority ownership interest in the intellectual property rights of the Canadian program.

6183 If all broadcast undertakings are required to operate under a point system, we believe that only a simple majority of the creative positions must be met to qualify as a Canadian program and that none of the creative positions should be mandatory in meeting this simple majority. This simplification and added flexibility will encourage partnerships and help ensure that Canadian programs being produced reflect the market and meet the needs of domestic audiences.

6184 With respect to data‑related issues, subjecting Canadian broadcast groups to disclosure and reporting standards that are materially higher than those applied to online undertakings would be inconsistent with the objective of creating a fair and equitable regulatory framework. The public disclosure of sensitive commercial information relating to the revenues, expenses, and subscriber levels of individual services should no longer be required. This puts Canadian services at a distinct competitive disadvantage because it provides our competitors with direct knowledge of our programming investments and revenue sources. This is untenable, particularly given that online undertakings are only required to report aggregate revenues that are not even publicly disclosed.

6185 Dean?

6186 MR. SHAIKH: Rogers submits that the Commission must take a holistic view of the contribution regime and consider all the ways that traditional broadcasting undertakings and groups are supporting the production of Canadian programming today. The contribution obligations imposed on Canadian broadcasting companies must not be greater than those imposed on online streamers. Both traditional and online undertakings should be granted the same level of flexibility to contribute in a manner that is consistent with their business models and programming priorities. The Commission must focus on the needs of Canadians and empower broadcasters to respond to the needs of our customers and audiences.

6187 Thank you. We look forward to answering your questions.

6188 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for your participation in the proceeding, and thank you for being here with us this morning. I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo to start the questioning.

6189 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. Thank you so much for being here today. Thanks for your submission.

6190 I'm going to start off just talking about some of the key roles. In your intervention, you suggest that eliminating requirements for specific key roles to be Canadian, such as writer or director, would in your view not reduce creative control by Canadians. So in your view, what other factors would be used to determine Canadian control, creative control, if not for requiring that Canadians hold those specific creative roles?

6191 MS. WHEELER: Thank you for the question. So, one of the main principles we've put forward is that Canadians should absolutely own a majority of the financial and creative control of a production. And under our point system proposal, we're suggesting that that would be by a simple majority. But obviously, if you own the intellectual property, a majority of the intellectual property in a program, you thereby own the majority of the financial and creative control over the project. So it matters less which positions are actually filled by Canadians if the overall creative and financial control is held by Canadians.

6192 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Some may argue that this could lead to much more foreign creative control on productions. Why is that not your belief?

6193 MS. WHEELER: The reality for Canadian broadcasters is that the majority of the programming that we produce and collaborate with independent production producers is done through a CABCO system, that CABCO tax credits represent a significant portion of the overall financing of a Canadian production, up to 15 per cent. And so it's unlikely that we're going to deviate from that point scale, which does require mandatory Canadian positions. So I guess what we're saying is that little is going to change unless that CABCO regime is altered or amended.

6194 What we're responding to in terms of eliminating the mandatory positions is under a revised point system that would only apply to CRTC‑certified Canadian programs. And we believe that having more flexibility in how we can fill those creative positions will expand our opportunities to partner and collaborate with non‑Canadian entities to help build and bring in further financing and exportability opportunities.

6195 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you for that. Let's move to service productions. Do you believe that service productions should receive certification? And if not, are there current contributions that foreign streamers make which should count as contributions to Canadian content, in your view?

6196 MS. WHEELER: Well, foreign service productions currently benefit from a considerable amount of tax credits from Canadian taxpayers. And so having those productions be largely financed by public taxpayers and then be credited towards a Canadian program contribution under the system seems to be a bit of a double dip. There's actually no direct investment from the foreign undertaking in that scenario because they're basically taking whatever they're, you know, getting through tax credits and applying that to their Canadian programming expenditure.

6197 So we do believe that, again, the IP, the intellectual property, needs to be retained by a Canadian in order for that to be considered an eligible Canadian program expenditure.

6198 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you for that.

6199 Let's talk about original programming. What measures, in your view, could be put into place by the Commission to foster greater creation of original Canadian programming in both French‑ and English‑language markets and by both domestic and also foreign streamers?

6200 MS. WHEELER: Sorry, I missed the first part of the question.

6201 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yeah. What measures could be put in place by the Commission to foster greater creation of original Canadian programming in both French‑ and English‑language markets by both domestic players and also foreign?

6202 MS. WHEELER: You know, I'll let Colette chime in on this, but I think original programming is really where we see our ability to remain competitive. If we continue to acquire outdated programming and build that on ‑‑ you know, and use that to drive our services, we're unlikely to be that successful. So the main part of our business model is to create new programming that can engage new audiences and keep them coming back to us and keep our advertisers and our subscribers coming back to us.

6203 MS. WATSON: The definition of original programming evolves based on audience needs, audience trends. We've heard that over and over and over again over the course of this hearing.

6204 Our accountability is to our audiences. And so going out ‑‑ we're not successful unless we're able to get audiences. And so we are forever seeking, creating programming that will meet the needs of audiences, the demands of audiences, the expectations. But we do so in a Canadian system because we are a Canadian company. We've been a Canadian company. We were born here, raised here, live here. We are part of the cultural fabric of this country. And so we don't view it as our burden; we view it as our fun. That's what makes us go to work every day.

6205 The financials over time through different sets of rules have changed and evolved, and we have opinions on how to evolve and help create something that will future‑proof our businesses. That's really what underpins every time we appear before you is how do we future‑proof our businesses with you, because we're here. We don't plan to go anywhere. And so that's why we create programming.

6206 With respect to Rogers, our money into funds is way bigger than the money taken back. We are the smallest of the three privately owned broadcast groups, but we're one of the largest BDUs. And so our envelope, our CMF envelope is most of the time single‑digit millions. And so we make things that set us apart but that also come with a marketable brand, if you will. Hudson and Rex, Canada's Got Talent, and Law & Order Toronto ‑‑ these are brands that market themselves that are formats but that help deliver audiences and at the same time help us create programming that is by, for, and with Canadians.

6207 MS. WHEELER: I might just add to Colette's point about the funding envelopes. Under our proposal, we're proposing a direct investment in Canadian programming in lieu of directing that funding to the CMF. And one of the large reasons for that ‑‑ and I think it does provide an incentive for us to create more original programming ‑‑ is that right now we're only triggering 27 per cent of the actual investment that we're directing to the CMF. So last year we directed $55 million to the CMF; we were able to trigger productions worth about $10 million.

6208 That's not the situation for other large vertically integrated companies. Bell gets back about 75 per cent of their investment in the CMF. Québecor, on the other hand, exceeds, you know, what they put into the CMF. So part of our proposal does create an incentive for us to be able to invest directly in Canadian programming and maximize those dollars rather than send them over to our competitors.

6209 MS. WATSON: And added to the incentive is the predictability, business planning. If you know what your budgets are, you can work with an independent producer and green‑light it six to eight months in advance of waiting for a tribunal somewhere to decide on whether it's a good idea or not.

6210 MR. SHAIKH: I suppose just to add one more thing, because your question was what measures should the Commission introduce, and it should be clear from our presentation that we're not asking for additional tools or additional regulatory intervention. What we're asking for is flexibility. So it really comes back to our model, which empowers us to serve our audiences based on their demands.

6211 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that fulsome answer.

6212 I want to move now to risky programs. You've probably been watching the hearing over the last week and a bit. A lot of discussion about risky programming. What types of Canadian programs other than news, in your view, should be considered risky to produce and hard to monetize ‑‑ and this is the part ‑‑ thus triggering the need for regulatory support? And I'm wondering if you can elaborate on how the responsibility to support risky Canadian programs should be equitably ‑‑ equitably, that's the word, not equally, but equitably ‑‑ shared between Canadian and foreign broadcasters and streamers? And just as part of that also, what should the Commission consider when determining what is at risk? I mean, we've heard a lot of discussion about children's programming in the last few days, about it being risky to produce. So I'm just wondering what your thoughts are.

6213 MR. SHAIKH: Yeah, let me try and tackle that question. And it may be, unfortunately, a long answer, because we have been listening to the hearing and some discussion about market failure and how to achieve the policy objectives and what do you do about at‑risk programming.

6214 You said don't talk about news. I have to talk about news, because actually that is the primary example of at‑risk programming that's not profitable. And if you relied entirely on the market, even though there's audience demand, you might not be able to produce programming to meet that audience demand. And that's why you need to introduce some framework, and in our case it's our model, which provides us with greater flexibility to serve that audience. I think that's an example where you really have to have the right balance of trusting the market but relying on regular tools, primarily flexibility, to respond to audience demand.

6215 In terms of other at‑risk programming, I think you have an array of tools, especially the 9.1(1)(h) tool. And some funds were introduced and imposed upon the online streamers in the first stage of this proceeding that provides funding for and support for BIPOC communities, Indigenous communities, OLMCs. And I think you have the right tools in place to make sure you're serving those equity‑deserving groups.

6216 Now, let me take on kids, because I know it's been discussed at great length. From our perspective, this is not a case of market failure. This is actually a market outcome. This is a response to a functioning market. Audiences, in this case kids, have spoken, and they're leaving the traditional system. We know that's the case.

6217 My fear is that because there's a perceived market outcome that the Commission is not satisfied with, it may introduce regulatory tools that really aren't about market failure but actually create market distortions and inefficiencies. In the case of kids' programming, it's a demand issue. Kids don't want programming from traditional platforms in the way they historically did.

6218 The right response to an issue of decreasing demand is not to increase supply. And my fear is in this hearing there's been a suggestion that because kids are leaving the traditional system, maybe we need to fund more or dedicate more funds to kids' programming, allocate some CPE to kids' programming. This would be an example of what we would argue is a harmful regulatory distortion because you're actually responding in the wrong way to the wrong program.

6219 There still would be kids' programming in the system. There will be the CBC. We assume that they will continue to offer kids' programming. And some programming will make its way to streamers. But if you introduce a new fund or funding commitments or CPE commitments, you'll be taking money away from things like local news that, in our model, we would like to continue to support.

6220 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So let's just flesh that out a bit. How do you meet kids where they are? So you're not saying that children's programming is in any kind of strife, that it's just that the eyeballs have gone somewhere else. They're getting what they want in places that are more convenient for them? So, you know, how do you meet them where they are?

6221 MR. SHAIKH: Again, you have to empower everyone within the system to respond to the market based on a flexibility to serve their audiences. Even within our model, where there's dedicated funding to the independent production sector and the CIPFs, there may be opportunities to continue to fund programming for kids that meets their needs.

6222 But again, the answer to declining audiences, the answer to decreased demand cannot be more funds, more subsidies that oversupply in response to declining demand, that undermine the entire market and where we should actually be properly allocating or spending.

6223 MS. WATSON: If I could add to that, sorry, the change in behaviours has been noticed by all of us in a regulated industry through the number of BDU households in this country. And that number has shrunk; right? We're now regulating for 50 per cent of the population. A lot of the millennials exited the system. Their kids are now the audiences. I watch the grandchildren I have, and they have quite an array of Canadian kids' programming available to them. They watch it on YouTube, and they watch it on some other feeds. But my grandson takes the remote control and talks into it and calls up his Paw Patrol or his CoComelon and up it comes magically.

6224 So where we came in in the regulated system was creating a BDU product that allows for seamless transitioning between a variety of feeds. We have to evolve. We all have to evolve, whether it's in point systems or technology, to meet the audiences where they are. So as a cable company, we deliver programming seamlessly to all audiences from the three‑year‑old to the senior citizen. And so we're trying. We're trying.

6225 And I guess what we're saying is if you try to solve all problems, you will dilute all contributions. So we implore on you to not do the one‑size‑fits‑all, let's just, you know, do a fraction of a percentage go to this fund, a fraction of a percentage go to that fund. Otherwise, we're all having potato salad for dinner.

6226 And so we think our model delivers pragmatic and ‑‑ I'm going to invent a word here ‑‑ implementable solutions that can be done today, tomorrow. We don't want to create funds where a third party has to establish and 15 cents on the dollar goes to administration instead of to the screen. And these are the kinds of things that we are proactively, constructively bringing to the Commission with our proposals.

6227 MR. SHAIKH: I want to add one more thing about funds, because we've heard some of the discussion in the proceeding.

6228 Another horrible outcome would be if we were forced to ‑‑ you know, somehow the industry was, you know, required to spend money or fund programming that ultimately made its way to streamers, that was made for ultimately streamers. And this is ‑‑ and kids is a good example. Kids are on the platforms of streamers. This is a point in our submission. We can't continue to shoulder the entire burden of achieving all the policy objectives on traditional tools like funds, especially if we're funding our competitors, where we're already facing, as we've described today, accelerating cord‑cutting.

6229 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you for that. So much more to talk about. I mean, we could keep going on that topic, and I have a lot of topics to get to.

6230 I want to move to news. Rogers states that Canada's vertically integrated companies should be allowed to offset their expenditures on local news against any requirements to contribute to third‑party funds, in particular the ILNF. What will the impact of what you're proposing on the ILNF and on other types of programming financed through funds, what would it be? And would this incentivize, in your view, more investments? And would it be enough to support news production in Canada? How do you think the Commission should balance all those interests? It's a very complicated situation.

6231 MS. WHEELER: Thank you. So, last year, our contribution to the ILNF was approximately $67 million. Rogers equally lost around $10 million on its English‑language news production. So our proposal really does look to allow us to direct those funds to our direct investments for players.

6232 We believe all undertakings in the system should contribute to news and information as an important pillar and policy objective under the Act. And so by doing that, by having others contributing into the ILNF, we believe that non‑vertically integrated news purveyors will be able to access, you know, the requisite funding that they may need in order to support their news programming.

6233 For us, we have community programming obligations. We have local news obligations. We have third‑language news obligations. And so really, what we're asking you today to allow us to do is to redirect that money towards our direct investments. And for those who can't, don't have a programming arm to directly invest in news programming, then we do think it's appropriate for them to contribute to a news fund.

6234 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you.

6235 I want to stay with news. I’m sure that you saw yesterday, BCE was here. They suggested getting rid of quotas on local news and locally‑reflective news. They said that this gives news directors, in their view, more editorial control. But, you know, I come from a news background. I mean, in most newsrooms that I’ve worked in, journalists are only concerned with covering newsworthy content that’s relevant to their local audience or whatever their audience is. They’re not necessarily ‑‑ not in a newsroom ‑‑ looking at quotas or any of those things.

6236 So, I’m wondering what your response is to BCE’s suggestion, and if you could just touch on it. Without some sort of a minimum quota, what protection is there for local news? Could it be possible that BCE’s suggestion could lead to local newscasts actually delivering provincial newscasts rather than really local content ‑‑ or relying on national news programs for content into them?

6237 So, if you could just comment on that?

6238 MS. WATSON: Thank you. So, we agree wholeheartedly with BCE that the locally‑reflective, locally‑relevant reporting be gone. We would like to be relieved of that obligation, not because we don’t want to do the programming ‑‑ because it is an administrative nightmare to implement and report on. We hire humans to do that, rather than go report on local news.

6239 And so, it was created in 20‑ ‑‑ and I lose track of hearings and years ‑‑ it was created as part of the reflection or reaction to the news reallocation hearing, and I forget what year that was in ‑‑ maybe 2015, 2016 ‑‑ where we could take money from our community channels in large markets and redirect it to local news. There was some concern that we would waste the money. There was, like, a clear lack of trust that we would waste the money.

6240 So, let me just say, you having been in a newsroom, me having grown up in a newsroom, that journalists and news are important to the fabric of this country, to the fabric of a community, and so, our audiences will tell us, by tuning out, if we’re not delivering on what’s locally important to them. So, our assignment editors and reporters, as you well know, live and breathe what’s going on around them, and we will continue to do that.

6241 Where I don’t necessarily agree with BCE is, I’m okay with exhibition requirements on news. Keep those. That’s fine. We made a commitment to news. If you want to codify that, okay. But let us make news as opposed to fill out reports.

6242 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So, I mean, that’s not the first time that we’ve heard that. So, I wonder, how can the reporting requirements be made easier for you? Is there any way that you see AI aiding in that, or any of the technologies? I’m just  ‑‑ I mean, we’re here to have a discussion, so let’s just throw some options on the table; right?

6243 MS. WATSON: And as I said, this locally‑reflective, locally‑relevant rule is eight years old, maybe. And so, we’ve done news for 50 years before that without this rule; why can’t we do news for the next 50 years without that rule? It feels punitive, it feels mistrustful, and it’s not reflective of where the money should go.

6244 News is not easy to monetize and, as you know, news ‑‑ everyone has appeared before you to say, ‘We’re losing money on news.’ We’re losing money on news. But we’re not saying, ‘I don’t want to do news anymore’; we want to do news. We will continue to do news.

6245 Exhibition requirements ‑‑ I’m sure Kale or Susan can help with what a report should look like. I’m here advocating for no report on locally‑reflective, locally‑relevant, because that’s what a 30‑minute newscast in Winnipeg is. It’s locally‑reflective and locally‑relevant.

6246 The rule ‑‑ I will give you an example ‑‑ the rule ‑‑ there is a wildfire in Brandon that didn’t count. We reported on it because, you know, there is no Citytv in Brandon, and there is no local station in Brandon, and so our viewers are all around in Winnipeg, caring what’s going on in Brandon, but it didn’t count in the right section. And that’s kind of maybe not right.

6247 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. Well, this follows. This is still with the news discussion. It follows, again, from what BCE had brought up yesterday, which was allowing funds from local expression to be diverted to news. Effectively, that means diverting funds from community television to news. You just mentioned in your presentation that the portion with respect to news and information programming would require an exemption from the community television policy.

6248 So, does that mean that you agree with BCE’s proposal? And if so, what impact do you think that would have on community television then?

6249 MS. WATSON: Yeah, somewhat ‑‑ so, their proposal is to take their ‑‑ as you know, IPTVs and terrestrial BDUs have different community channel rules. And so, their community channel contributions are different. They have a VOD obligation.

6250 We have ‑‑ I’m going to throw down a challenge to Peggy, who said TVA was the most regulated station in Canada; I think community channels are the most regulated channels in Canada. We would still have those stations, if I can call them that, but we would redirect, again, if maybe seven or eight years ago the communication felt the need to protect community television, we like community information ‑‑ and so, and community public affairs. We used to have licensee‑produced programs in community television that would ‑‑ it’d be ‘the mayor’s hour’, ‘the M.P.’s hour’. It’d be city council. It’d be debates at election time with local candidates, not national federal candidates.

6251 And so, over time, the Commission has changed those rules to be 75 percent of all the money has to go to access‑produced programming and none of the independent or licensee‑produced programming. And that’s skewed, where none of the budgets we have now can go towards local information and public affairs. Our proposal is, let’s change.

6252 In Rogers, community television was launched in 1969. I wasn’t there. I am old, but I wasn’t there. But it needs to evolve, and we have always been ‑‑ we, Rogers, have always been at the forefront of evolving community television. We used to have local newscasts called ‘First Local’ in our community stations, so that Mississauga had a newscast, and Collingwood had a newscast, and Barrie had a newscast. But it had to be abandoned in force of the rules of licensee versus access‑produced programming, and how you fund that.

6253 We’re asking you to take a look, with an open mind, at, how do you let us stay in all those markets? We’re not proposing, like Bell, to shut down in those markets, but we need to spend on local news and information in those markets so that we can contribute to informing communities. My kids live in Stittsville. They get their local news now from Facebook. And so, sure, that’s great, but isn't that our job ‑‑ to make sure that they get some information too? And so, we would like to continue; we don’t want to shy away from it, but there is tens of millions of dollars spent on community television access funding that could go to news at a community level.

6254 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you so much for that.

6255 My final question ‑‑ because I know that my colleagues have a lot of questions as well. I want to talk about CPE and revenues. You propose excluding revenues drawn from sports programming for the purpose of calculating those CPE requirements. You also advocate for eliminating sports programming as part of the CPE framework.

6256 So, I’m wondering how that would be consistent with the policy objectives of providing optimal support to the creation, production, and distribution of Canadian programming?

6257 MS. WHEELER: Thank you. So, just to be clear, what we’re advocating for is that the way that the Commission has currently treated sports services ‑‑ mainstream sports services ‑‑ be maintained in a new regime. So, and that would extend to online undertakings that focus exclusively on sports.

6258 So, from a Rogers perspective, our direct‑to‑consumer product Sportsnet+ would be governed under a revised mainstream sports conditions of service requirement. The reason for that is, that if it was included in our group, there is a risk, given that our group contribution is bifurcated to different pillars, that that revenue ‑‑ and the expenses ‑‑ would then be diverted to subsidize non‑sports initiatives.

6259 And as you know from reading in the press, sports programming is very expensive, and we can ill afford to have that revenue redirected to non‑sports programming initiatives. We need to be able to cover all of the costs that we are now incurring in order to remain competitive in the sports arena, towards sports programming. And so, that’s fundamentally why we’re suggesting that you keep mainstream sports services and online undertakings separate from any type of group framework that you may adopt going forward.

6260 Again, to, you know, Vice‑Scott’s earlier comments with Anthem, sports programming doesn’t require Commission intervention. It is market sustainable. We’ve obviously invested in both linear and digital infrastructure to be able to support that, and win audiences going forward. And so, again, it’s not something that we think requires regulatory intervention.

6261 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank very much for that. Those are all my questions. I hand it back to the Chair.

6262 THE CHAIRPERSON: And I will hand things over to the Vice‑Chair.

6263 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you, Madame Watson. Bonjour. Hello, everyone.

6264 The good thing about having you later in the week is, I get to ask you to react to some of the things that were suggested earlier in the week. And so, I will do a little bit of that, if that’s okay with you, and I’ll try not to overlap too much with some of the things you’ve already put forward.

6265 So, with respect to CPE, you probably heard Bell recommending that both traditional broadcasters and online undertakings contribute to a fund that would cover the entire cost of the 9(1)(h) services. You propose that Canadian ownership groups should have the option of being credited CPE for the distribution of these services. You made the point earlier in your reply to my colleague’s question about the administrative burden of funds, but how would your proposal better obtain the objectives of the Act than a standalone fund?

6266 MR. SHAIKH: Well, it ‑‑ thank you for the question. It shouldn’t surprise you that we’re not big proponents of funds. We feel that funds generally are less efficient than providing different entities with greater flexibility. I think what Bell says, there’s some to our proposal. We would say that there’s some merit to Bell’s proposal in terms of considering a requirement on streamers ‑‑ streamers only ‑‑ to fund the 9(1)(h) services in recognition of the impact they’re having on the regulated system.

6267 However, we obviously would prefer our model, which involves a full recognition of the significant financial and non‑financial contributions that we make to the system, which includes the carriage of and payment to 9(1)(h) services. I don’t think we need to reconsider that approach. I think there should still be an obligation on those services at renewal to demonstrate their continued exceptional importance, but that’s the model we prefer.

6268 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Sure, but my question was more about what makes your model a better model in respecting the goals in the Act?

6269 MS. WATSON: So, if I can jump in on the practical sense of things, we invented CPAC at Rogers, and so, I’ll use my experience with that one. It is difficult to plan if you’ve got to rely on a fund. The Commission awards 9(1)(h) licenses. The Commission evaluates the applications. The Commission determines what the wholesale fee is for that 9(1)(h) service. And it is not an easy feat for a 9(1)(h) service to come to you and say, ‘I need more money.’ You make them defend their costs. Rightfully so, and so, they do so.

6270 So, you’ve done that. Step one, you assign a wholesale fee. They are now mandated to be carried on all licensed BDUs. We send them money every month. Other BDUs send them money every month. Yes, the market is contracting, so they are concerned about the reduced households ‑‑ the number of households that allows for them for their planning, but they can rely ‑‑ in having managed one of those, you know at least you’re going to make payroll because the funds are coming in, in that companies are paying you on a monthly business and you get into a routine where you know the money is incoming.

6271 Having to go to a fund and then lose 15 cents on every dollar for someone else to then ‑‑ and we don’t know how long that’s going to take. You know, I’m just going to have one little side rant, as an example ‑‑ during the last election period, we had to postpone some ‑‑ or we didn’t postpone; it actually cost us some interim financing ‑‑ real dollars that, you know, have seven digits in them, because the CMF was in caretaker mode during the election period. Is CMF, you know, really in that boat? And so, what if this new fund decides they’re in caretaker mode and there’s a minority government?

6272 CPAC has to cover an election. Are they going to have to go wonder if they can pay their reporters to cover the election because some fund went into caretaker mode? Our way is pragmatic. It’s implementable ‑‑ there goes that word again ‑‑ and it is effective and efficient. To the streamers’ point, sure ‑‑ maybe you allocate that, but at least they’ll have 50 percent of their base funding continue to come to them, day in and day out, today.

6273 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Thank you for that. I want to get back to at‑risk programming. Again, earlier this week, Québecor seemed to imply that certain types of at‑risk programming should be primarily the responsibility of the public broadcaster, and I asked the question to Bell, and they seemed to support that idea as well. They even went as far as saying that it should be the online streamers paying into supporting at‑risk programming.

6274 So, I am interested in hearing your views on that particular idea. Who gets to share the responsibility over at‑risk programming? You know, we talked about children’s program, and I’ll get to that, but that’s a good example.

6275 MR. SHAIKH: Yeah, again, I mean, it comes back our point, which I think the genre programming that’s most at risk without more creative flexibility is news programming, and that’s why we would like to focus on our model. It’s challenging to have that discussion without, you know, sort of delineating each kind of area that you consider at risk, because quite honestly, we think in today’s system, the objectives of the Broadcasting Act are being met through a combination of market forces and the right set of regulatory tools.

6276 So, on balance, I don’t think the objectives are at risk in respect of any individual programming, and to the extent that we need to focus on certain genres of programming, it’s better to provide private broadcasters with greater flexibility, to meet the needs and demands of their audiences. Certainly, we would agree with others that, in some cases, CBC, the public broadcaster, could have certainly more responsibility for at‑risk programming.

6277 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: I’m not sure I understood correctly what you’re saying. Are you saying that there isn't any programming that is particularly at risk? Is that what you’re saying? So, I’m thinking of kids programming, Indigenous content, content for official languages minority, content aimed at equity deserving groups. Are you saying that this is an illusion ‑‑ we don’t necessarily have programming that’s at risk in Canada, so the discussion is moot?

6278 I’m sorry, I didn’t want to misrepresent; I just want you to clarify your ideas on that.

6279 MR. SHAIKH: I think you have the right set of tools in place, with a combination of the 9(1)(h) tools, for certain at‑risk programming, to guarantee the carriage of certain services. I think you’ve introduced new funding imposed on streamers ‑‑ the Black Screen Office Fund, an Indigenous fund, funding for OLMCs. You do have the CBC.

6280 So, yes, I would say that there should be no additional incremental steps out of this proceeding, and quite honestly, that’s a legitimate fear we have as BDUs and broadcasters, that with each hearing we end up with incremental regulation, and often it’s the case that it’s relying on traditional tools like dedicated CPE or funds imposed on the traditional system.

6281 So, our real fear is that, out of this proceeding, instead of providing us with the flexibility that we need to serve our audience, without recognition of the existing tools, that are very effective, in place to serve what’s considered at‑risk programming, that if you do more incrementally, it will actually undermine the health of the system.

6282 And Sue and I have had this discussion about kids programming. We don’t think that that’s the case where there’s market failure that justifies Commission intervention. Correct? Do you want to answer?

6283 MS. WATSON: I just want to add that our position on additional regulation does not symbolize how we feel about the programming itself. We are stepping up to 9(1)(h). We are stepping up to our obligations. We feel that that is this company’s contribution. That is the vertically‑integrated sector’s contribution. Can there, should there be contributions from others, as Dean just said? You’ve already manifested how that should be done ‑‑ creative percentages, and which funds for which to do that. And the Commission itself, through 9(1)(h) license renewals, can address whether the funding is adequate.

6284 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: You made an interesting comment, referring to your kids and Stittsville, earlier in your intervention, when you talked about seamless transitioning in regards to kinds programming and the fact that kids are consuming content online more than on linear, traditional broadcasting.

6285 Is there a role for the CRTC to facilitate that seamless transitioning? How should that be reflected? And should it be reflected in one way or another in our regulatory construct?

6286 MS. WATSON: To be honest, no. I think the market has done its job. The programming exists. The audience has found where to get it. We as businesses in this market have found the technology to help them stay in the BDU ecosystem, because them staying in the BDU ecosystem with our cable product allows more 9(1)(h) contributions, more of at‑risk programming to get made through all of the other obligations that we have, and it continues ‑‑ the other things that we bring to the table ‑‑ local news and Canadian dramas, and everything else that we provide. So, the market recognized the audience was moving, and so, we stepped up. Right now, I don’t someone a need for regulatory intervention.

6287 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you for that. Just a couple of questions on AI before I give the floor to my colleagues.

6288 So, in your submission, you had indicated that you support the use of AI to increase efficiency in programming production if it results in higher quality content that resonates with audiences. You also emphasize the importance of clearly identifying the use of AI in creative production. Another intervenor made the same recommendation.

6289 So, two questions. Do you support all forms of AI, include generative? And where do you draw the line, or do you? And have you considered the IP aspect of AI use and how it should be reflected in the regulatory regime, including in the definition of Canadian content?

6290 MS. WATSON: I'll start at 30,000 feet, and then my colleagues will get in, into the implemental.

6291 AI scares me. It should scare us all; right? And so, it has tremendous possibilities, and brings tremendous uncertainty and scariness. And so, with that, we approach it with caution. In our newsrooms, we’re currently updating our editorial policy to ensure that no standup by a reporter is written by AI. A reporter has to write his or her own AI.

6292 Can it help us in data reporting? Probably. But as a company, we have implemented very strict rules, and a big box around how AI is implemented and deployed in our company, because we need to tread carefully and be mindful.

6293 From a generative perspective, I don’t see us going there any time soon and we are not ‑‑ we’re not advocating the use of that. I don’t know. I don’t think it’d be great news to have a pretend thing giving me my news, but some day in another lifetime.

6294 I think you’re right to worry about it now. I don’t know that we’re ready for a set of rules around because it’s too unknown. But I understand and I don’t envy your conundrum in what do you do with this.

6295 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: But would you see some value in us clarifying in the definition that when we’re talking about Canadian content, for instance, we are referring to content that is human created? Is this something that you feel would be important, useful in bringing more clarity and drawing a line in the sand?

6296 MS. WATSON: I will let our regulatory team and our Director of Programming answer that one.

6297 MS. WHEELER: To be honest with you, we're not currently using AI in any of our production, and so we’re probably not best positioned to ‑‑ you know, to speak exactly to the impact or the benefits of having that kind of clarification included in the definition.

6298 Where we have started to experiment with AI has been on the accessibility side. As the Commission is well aware, live captioning remains a challenge for broadcasters, particularly in the news and sports genres, and so we’ve started to adopt some of the technology to see if it could help us meet some of those barriers. It’s still not ready for primetime yet, still not meeting the quality standards that we require for our broadcasts, but we’re hopeful that with more experience and more practice in terms of training the tool that it could be a really material benefit to helping provide better quality and accessible programming for our audiences.

6299 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

6300 Just a final follow‑up on AI on this idea of labelling the work to make sure that it’s well understood that a portion of the work was, for instance, produced using AI or AI tool, could you unpack a little bit the ‑‑ for me, with my copyright background, it sounds like, you know, making sure attribution is given where attribution is warranted.

6301 So could you unpack a little bit what you had in mind, what it would look like?

6302 MS. WHEELER: We don't really have a definitive view on what it would look like, but obviously, you know, I think many would have heard the story out of Australia a couple of weeks ago where they had a radio host that was AI and most of the listeners believed it was a real person and then found out months later that it was actually an AI generated voice. And the radio station, you know, was given a blowback from that.

6303 And so I think just as part of our responsibility as broadcasters to our audiences, we would never do that without fully disclosing and being transparent to our audiences because that’s a huge trust issue. And if you lose the trust of your audiences, then you’ve lost your business.

6304 And so I think anyone who’s using AI in the production of audiovisual or audio content would ‑‑ it would be incumbent on them to be as transparent as possible in how they’re using that technology to create their programming.

6305 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: So this would almost be more like a code of conduct kind of issue.

6306 MS. WHEELER: Exactly. And I think it’s, you know, reputationally important for many businesses if they are to, you know, maintain the trust of their audiences to do that.

6307 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. That’s all.

6308 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

6309 I will turn things over to Commissioner Paquette.

6310 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hi. I’d like to go a little further on some elements that you propose in your intervention.

6311 You suggest that foreign streamers should be required to support programming that is core to their business like Canadian dramas and documentaries, and you suggest that they should contribute through the CMF and the Independent News Fund.

6312 In this model that you are proposing, do the foreign services have access to the CMF and the other funds?

6313 MS. WHEELER: Yeah, I think it's ‑‑ you know, one of our core principles is fairness and equitability, and so I think if you’re contributing to the CMF you should be able to trigger programming for it.

6314 Again, our model doesn’t contemplate contributing to the CMF because it does represent a lot of administrative and ‑‑ you know, difficulties for us in how we’re actually planning our programming and our production schedules.

6315 I think you’ve heard from the foreign online streamers that they have a similar ‑‑ that they, you know, are concerned about having a similar concern, and so ‑‑ but yes, in terms of if you’re paying into a fund, you should be able to, obviously, you know, participate and benefit from the proceeds of that.

6316 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And you also propose that the contribution of Canadian group focus on local news, Canadian independent productions and public interest channels. How do you see the future of the conventional channels like CTV? Will they become more and more specialized on news while drama and documentaries will be left to the international streamers?

6317 MS. WHEELER: What we've ‑‑ in terms of conventional television, obviously news is a ‑‑ remains an important component of our programming schedule, but it also is, you know, a large bullhorn for our programming in general. A lot of the Canadian programming that we’ve invested in like dramas like Law & Order and Hudson and Rex, they really need that large premiere window on the linear broadcasts, but then what we do is we put it on our digital product, “City Plus”, where viewers can then catch up on it or maybe find it for the first time.

6318 And so in a digital world, there isn’t the same silo of having conventional and then specialty services that are focused on specific genres. Our “City Plus” product, you can go there and you can get, you know, our drama productions, you can get our news productions, you can get our third language productions. You know, you can get a medley of different programming and that’s really, you know, more in line with an online on‑demand experience that audiences are now accustomed to.

6319 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So in your view, there's no danger that the Canadian groups will concentrate ‑‑ mainly concentrate on news while all drama and fiction will be abandoned to the international services?

6320 MS. WHEELER: No, I don't think we're suggesting that. I think we’re suggesting that our main priority is on news, but clearly we’re very interested in doing Canadian programming in all genres.

6321 We’ve just recently invested in a new lifestyle programming that we’re, you know, eager to commission and produce additional Canadian programming to complement those important brands. And so that’s something that we’re very invested in doing and expect to do, you know, going forward.

6322 What we’re saying is that we don’t need an actual quota within a quota to be able to continue to do that. That’s what, you know, for us is operationally frustrating because it doesn’t align with our production schedules and our programming decisions necessarily.

6323 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And how do you react to the proposal of the MPA that the Canadian online services have the same level of contribution requirement as the foreign services?

6324 MR. SHAIKH: Is this the greatest practicable use question?

6325 I think what you’re asking is the position of streamers is that the Act says that they have to do less than we do and they’re relying on one statement about greatest practicable use, which really is about human resources. And I think that was drafted in recognition of the fact that we employ tens of thousands of people within our system and it can’t really be expected streamers would have that same level of human resource obligation in Canada.

6326 I think, Commissioner Naidoo, you rightly pointed out to the MPA that there’s a Policy Direction that provides clarity about equity and that means equitable contributions, financial and non‑financial. And from our perspective, given the massive non‑financial as well as financial contributions that we make to the system, it makes sense that there actually is a ‑‑ you know, it’s reasonable to actually impose greater financial obligations on them to further level the playing field.

6327 I think equitable doesn’t mean identical. That’s why our model provides a way that we can come to you with conditions of service that, you know, proposes the most flexible way that each individual ownership group can realize the objectives of the Act and serve our audiences. And so we think the streamers’ position puts at risk the very first objective of the Act, which is a broadcasting system that is Canadian owned and controlled.

6328 And if you continue to give them greater financial flexibility than we have, you’re putting at risk the Canadian owned broadcasting system.

6329 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And I understand what you say about what they said, that they should have lower requirements, but they also say that it’s not fair that the Canadian services are exempted at the moment from the regulation.

6330 Any comments on this?

6331 MR. SHAIKH: Well, at the moment, we are heavily regulated, over regulated, we would say, from our submission. We have a massive set of financial and non‑financial obligations. They have almost none except for those imposed in the first stage of this proceeding.

6332 Levelling the playing field, creating equity, means two things, imposing some obligations on them but, more significantly, it should be clear from our submissions drastically reducing the financial and non‑financial obligations imposed on Canadian broadcasters and BDUs and recognizing the commitments that we already make to the system which are significant.

6333 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And one last question.

6334 I saw in your intervention that you submit that broadcasters should be eligible to own IP. You say you don’t think that it is necessary that Canadian independent producers should be the mandatory holders of IP.

6335 So can you tell us more about this suggestion? Are we ‑‑ should we go back to a model where the broadcaster would be able to produce, apply for financing without any independent producers involved?

6336 MS. WHEELER: I think yes. I think what we’re saying is that there should be a mix. Broadcasters where they want to invest and own a portion of the intellectual property in a Canadian program that they’ve put up the majority of the financing for, that it’s only fair that they be able to benefit from any kind of future monetization of that programming.

6337 Broadcast licence fees still represent the largest part of a finance ‑‑ of the financing model of a Canadian program, and so the fact that we’re not able to enjoy the benefits of future revenue streams associated with that seems unfair to us. But that’s not to say that we don’t believe that there’s ‑‑ continues to be an important role for the independent production community and that they should, you know, retain a certain level of ownership over the IP as well. We think that that’s something that can be commercially negotiated through partnerships and through different financing arrangements.

6338 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And should there be a kind of protection for independent production? Do you think ‑‑

6339 MS. WHEELER: Sorry. Could you repeat that?

6340 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Should there be a kind of protection in the ecosystem to support independent production in terms of requirements ‑‑

6341 MS. WHEELER: We proposed an independent production expenditure as part of our model, and so obviously, that would ensure that there’s a certain amount of work being done with the independent production sector. But in terms of a terms of trade or a commercial practices rule, we don’t believe that that’s necessary. The Commission determined that that was not necessary almost 10 years ago and we don’t think there’s any evidence to suggest that that was the wrong decision or that there’s an issue right now.

6342 We collaborate with independent producers regularly and we enjoy a very good relationship where we’ve come up with, you know, reasonable and fair commercial arrangements that we’re happy with.

6343 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you.

6344 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

6345 Let’s go to Vice‑Chair Scott.

6346 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks.

6347 So I want to go back to the point system for a second. So I hear you loud and clear if we’re going to have one, it should be simple, and you put forward a pretty simple test where a simple majority counts as Canadian and anything below doesn’t.

6348 What are your thoughts on the concept of a more scalable approach whereby if you’ve got, you know, 50 percent of the points you get 50 percent of the credit, anything above you get more credit, anything below you get less? Does that kind of flexibility ‑‑ you know, we let a broadcaster choose to invest in 100 duck‑sized horses or one horse‑sized duck, is that kind of flexibility good for the industry and what kinds of policy outcomes would you expect it to deliver?

6349 MS. WHEELER: So we're obviously speaking from the position of a Canadian broadcaster. And as I mentioned earlier, the CAVCO tax credit regime will continue to dictate how we commission and produce Canadian programs because it’s ‑‑ you know, the tax credits still represent a large portion of the financing model, the very ‑‑ you know, I think someone referred to it as a puzzle earlier. It’s absolutely a puzzle.

6350 And so we don’t see any type of incentives or credits and things like that really influencing how we’re continuing to commission programming. And that may be something that’s of interest to foreign online undertakings who don’t avail themselves or can’t avail themselves of the tax credit regime because it does require intellectual property ownership by a Canadian.

6351 For us, where we see the real, you know, flexibility and simplicity is to be able to use our programming investments directly or make direct programming investments in our programming as opposed to having to send it out to third parties. And so that’s really the flexibility that we’re looking ‑‑ and the simplicity that we’re looking for under our model.

6352 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: All right. Thanks very much.

6353 THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps just one last question before we turn things back over to you, and it builds on what you’ve been talking about in terms of flexibility.

6354 We’ve heard a lot ‑‑ you’ve heard a lot about the desire for flexibility. You said this morning that your model centres around flexibility. You said, “What we’re asking for is flexibility”. We have heard the same thing from many other intervenors, including foreign streamers.

6355 So the question I would put to you, which is the same question that I put to Bell yesterday, was if we do give flexibility or take a flexible approach across the system, then how do we ensure that we meet those public policy goals that are in the Act? So again coming back to some of the earlier questions that you addressed, you know, to ensure that we have French language content, that we have content for Indigenous and racialized communities, local news, which you talked about quite a bit.

6356 So how do we ensure that if we give flexibility to everybody?

6357 MR. SHAIKH: Yeah, and I think it still has to be a model that’s based on simple rules. So we’re not asking for complete deregulation. You can appreciate we have a hearing coming up where we’re going to be talking about what our full model is, and obviously Canadian BDUs will still be required to carry a preponderance of Canadian services. They’ll still be required to carry 9.1(1)(h) services, which respond to some of those equity‑deserving groups that you’ve described, carry local over‑the‑air stations. Beyond that, we need greater flexibility across our content side to serve audiences. And within the SIPIF and the independent programming expenditure, we’ll have an opportunity to continue to provide programming to to equity‑deserving groups.

6358 As we said already, there’s a new fund created to address some of those concerns.

6359 And I’ll come back to the point that I strongly believe the broadcasting system today in combination rely on market forces and regulation is achieving those objectives. We are serving equity‑deserving groups. We do have programming for English and French language communities, including OLNCs, and we have programming for several equity‑deserving groups.

6360 Perhaps we can do more and we should do more, and I think it’s incumbent upon private broadcasters and especially the public broadcaster to make sure that those audiences are well served. But we can’t rely on the traditional tools any more. We have ‑‑ we no longer have a closed system, as others have said in this proceeding. We’re competing against massive online streaming giants that have no rules. We need much more flexibility to compete for audiences, subscribers, advertising dollars with programming that meets the needs and desires of Canadians that will include programming that responds to the needs of equity‑deserving groups.

6361 We can’t come out of this proceeding with more funds imposed on the traditional system, more rules, more onerous obligations, more dedicated CPE. That will actually doom the system.

6362 THE CHAIRPERSON: I’m hearing a lot of love for the funds.

6363 Let’s turn things back over to you for any concluding remarks.

6364 MR. SHAIKH: Thank you, Chair Eatrides.

6365 We understand this is a challenging task that you have in front of you. There are lots of diverging views, but it’s important. It’s about ‑‑ as the notices have said, it’s about a sustainable path forward that modernizes the Canadian broadcasting system.

6366 We think our model that’s based on ‑‑ and I don’t want to keep repeating words, but ‑‑ increased flexibility and regulatory relief is the best path forward to realize the objectives of the Act, principally a Canadian owned and controlled broadcasting system. And there’s been some discussion of the Policy Direction, but not enough discussion about one of the things in the Policy Direction which said that the Commission has been directed to introduce a flexible and adaptable regulatory framework which means, among other things, minimizing our regulatory burden and respecting audience choice.

6367 It does say, notably, that they should ‑‑ the Commission should do this where appropriate. Hopefully it’s clear from our submission that it’s not just appropriate. It’s absolutely necessary that we have that flexibility to serve the needs of our audiences.

6368 Do you want to add anything?

6369 MS. WATSON: I do. One last rant.

6370 We at Rogers took some big swings in the last 12 months, big swings, mostly, primarily, only because I was trying to add seven to 10 years of runway to the businesses I run and because we believe in what we do. We come to work every day enjoying what we do and we want to keep doing it.

6371 Market forces are that it is shrinking, contracting and we needed to react to try and figure out how do we stay in business for seven to 10 more years.

6372 I’m asking you today to think about how do we stay in business for seven to 10 more years, and that’s across all our lines of business.

6373 We face headwinds every single day. Our competitors are American. They are not within the industry here. So our squabbles here exist and we need flexibility, but we also need speed and reaction because waiting years to get things to come out of the Commission is too late. The Americans come in and will have taken six or seven more points of penetration off the marketplace. And so we need ‑‑ we’re here. We react. We are taking the risks. We are taking huge financial risks because we believe in this.

6374 And so sometimes it feels like you don’t think we believe in this, and we do. And I just hope that you realize that our appearance here, that our work, that the thousands of employees who work at Rogers come to work every day because we believe in this and we believe in this country and we want to work with you, but we need for it to go a little bit faster.

6375 Thank you.

6376 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you.

6377 And you know, I can say that we’re listening and we hear you and we’ve heard others as well on some of these issues in terms of speed. We heard the word “velocity” yesterday morning, so we’ve heard and we’ve heard on regulatory burden.

6378 So thank you very much for coming and sharing your perspectives with us. We really appreciate it.

6379 MR. SHAIKH: Thank you.

6380 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a short five‑minute break and be back at 11:40.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 11 h 35

‑‑‑ Reprise à 11 h 43

6381 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We'll now hear the presentation of the Canadian Media Productions Association. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

6382 MR. D’OLIVEIRA: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioner Eatrides, Commissioners, and Commission staff. My name is Damon D'Oliveira. I am the co‑founder of Conquering Lion Pictures and chair of the board of directors at the Canadian Media Producers Association.

6383 To my left is Reynolds Mastin, president and CEO of the CMPA; Alain Strati, CMPA's senior vice‑president, Industry, Policy and General Counsel; Erin Haskett, president of Lark Productions and executive producer of Law & Order Toronto: Criminal Intent, Allegiance, and Farming for Love, major successes in both the scripted and unscripted programming categories; and the CMPA's director of Regulatory Affairs, Patrick Smith. To my right is Mark Montefiore, founder and president of New Metric Media and executive producer of the hit Canadian comedies Letterkenny and Shoresy; and Lisa Broadfoot, vice‑president, Industry and Business Affairs.

6384 This proceeding is about more than regulatory reform. It is about setting the conditions under which Canadian stories, talent, and businesses will thrive in an era of global platforms and shifting economic models. At its core, this hearing is about the future of Canadian programming: who makes it, who owns and controls it, and who benefits from its success.

6385 Canadian independent producers navigate the front lines of creativity and risk. Our experiences illustrate what's at stake and what's possible when policy supports long‑term value creation in Canada. That includes support for formats that require dedicated attention from the regulatory framework, such as feature film, documentaries, and children's programming. Online services are not just exhibitors and distributors; they operate across the spectrum of audiovisual storytelling. The Commission must take a similarly comprehensive approach to supporting Canadian programming, and it must prioritize Canadian ownership of that programming.

6386 For example, my company's most recent feature film, Brother, premiered at TIFF and resonated with diverse Canadian audiences in a way that was deeply meaningful to me. Its success also had a surprising side effect: it reignited interest in our very first film, Rude, which premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in 1995 and later screened at TIFF, Sundance, and Locarno. That experience reinforced the importance of intellectual property ownership: because we retained the rights to Rude, we were able to reintroduce the film to new audiences on our terms.

6387 Mark?

6388 MR. MONTEFIORE: Is this mine? Is this my mic? This one? Oh, okay. I'm new.

‑‑‑ Rires

6389 The Commission may be familiar with Letterkenny and Shoresy, two of North America's top comedies in the last few years, produced right here out of Canada. While I doubt either series will be screening at the Cannes Film Festival anytime soon, Damon and I have more in common than you might think. We're both executive producers, business owners, and entrepreneurs who have been able to invest, grow, and create long‑term value for our companies and the Canadian production sector by retaining the rights to our work.

6390 Our companies are built on great creative ‑‑ I can't praise our creative teams enough. But long‑term success depends on retaining IP and building on that creative foundation. That ownership has allowed New Metric to build capital beyond the programming we produce.

6391 Thanks to IP ownership, we've expanded Letterkenny and Shoresy into live tours, licensed merchandise, and international sales. Those revenues enable producers to build our companies and, most crucially, to invest in developing a slate of new shows that we believe Canadian and global audiences will love.

6392 MS. HASKETT: Producers and producing are all about partnerships. Core to our role is bringing to the table partners ‑‑ financial and creative ‑‑ that are the right ones for a show. And in any good partnership, when you score a homerun ‑‑ or, since the producer of Letterkenny is here, when you go “Bar down, Bardownski,” ‑‑ a show is a hit, all the partners should share in its success. This must include producers who, under the Broadcasting Act, are supposed to retain a significant and equitable share of the IP in their own shows.

6393 I am very proud of what Lark, working with our partners, has been able to achieve in the last year: Law & Order Toronto: Criminal Intent is a number one prime time drama on Rogers. Allegiance, our original crime procedural, resonated with CBC's audience and specifically South Asian communities. Family Law was a major success on Corus and has found a home on the CW in the US. But most importantly, Lark created thousands of jobs and countless new opportunities for Canadian creative talent. That's what the system should be about.

6394 MR. STRATI: When Canadian independent producers are empowered, they deliver compelling, resonant storytelling that drives cultural impact and economic growth. But creative ambition alone is not enough. We must also have a regulatory framework that provides the conditions for strong Canadian businesses that support Canadian talent and Canadian storytelling. That's why a modernized contribution model ‑‑ one that reinforces the foundational role of revenue‑based obligations ‑‑ must remain as a crucial component of the Commission's regulatory framework.

6395 Many online services focus on programming from PNI categories. A strong contribution to PNI is entirely consistent with their service mandates and programming strategies. This is why we do not agree with the Commission's preliminary view to eliminate PNI. The Commission's financial reporting also demonstrates the extent to which broadcasters allocate their programming budgets on non‑Canadian PNI.

6396 The Commission's approach should prioritize contributions from both broadcasters and online services, and while flexibility may be considered, it cannot come at the expense of meaningful investment in original, high‑quality Canadian programming. PNI also currently serves as the only mechanism to articulate independent production requirements. Yet this is not mentioned in the Commission's proposed new framework, nor in the comments from most broadcasters and online services.

6397 We propose that the Commission shift its approach to CPE. It should first set a contribution level for independent production expenditures, an IPE. Then, it should consider a contribution to PNI, based on the programming spend and strategy of the services in question. Contributions matter, but so does their purpose. The Commission needs practical models that reflect different production types while protecting Canadian creative authorship and economic participation.

6398 Reynolds?

6399 MR. MASTIN: At long last, we come to the question on everyone's mind: “What constitutes a Canadian program?” With key modifications, the CMPA believes that your proposed modernized point system will embed Canadian creative perspectives in their stories not as a standalone “cultural test,” but as a tool for authentic Canadian expression.

6400 But this responds only partly to the requirements set out in subsection 10(1.1) of the Act, since Canadian programs are not solely defined by their creative inputs. Parliament also gave due consideration to the economic dimensions of Canadian programs. While familiar, the CAVCO framework does have its limitations, particularly when it comes to ensuring that Canadian producers receive a “significant and equitable” financial participation in a program. The Commission has an opportunity to create a robust, enforceable standard that reflects the realities of modern production.

6401 The complexity of this task is due in large part to the nature of paragraph 10(1.1)(a), what we have come to call the “IP paragraph.” Simply put, there's a lot in there ‑‑ and it's all new. To assist the Commission in unpacking and applying this provision, the CMPA has further refined the IP proposals from our written submission, and we recommend that the CRTC require IPE requirements be met through these two models.

6402 In each model, the standard requirements for certification remain ‑‑ Canadian producer control, creative inputs, and production spend. The models would, however, be differentiated by varying degrees of Canadian control over copyright, licence terms, exploitation rights, and back‑end participation. This approach allows the Commission to recognize the diverse ways Canadian programs are financed and structured, while still ensuring that certified programming delivers on the requirement of paragraph 10(1.1)(a), that Canadian independent producers share in the economic success of their own shows.

6403 Model A would apply to programs commissioned for the purpose of meeting new IPE requirements, for both Canadian broadcasters and foreign online services, adhering to the specific rights and interests that we outlined in Appendix A.

6404 Model B is intended for productions involving domestic and international partners where a highly flexible approach could be applied to IP ownership. There are several potential options under model B: it includes the existing model for co‑ventures, and we note you have asked questions of intervenors relating to the co‑venture model. It also includes buyouts of producer‑sourced and ‑developed concepts, and the Commission's give‑and‑take model of greater creative control to reasonably justify increased non‑Canadian ownership in certain cases.

6405 Once fully articulated, models A and B would provide a complete operational definition of what constitutes a “significant and equitable benefit” for Canadian producers, aligning with both the Act and industry best practices. To ensure fairness across models A and B, the CMPA proposes a CRTC‑approved code of practice, which we note you also have been asking intervenors about. And that code of practice would exist to mitigate power imbalances while maintaining a clear, consistent standard for what constitutes Canadian creative and economic control.

6406 For phase 3, the Commission will specify how CPE requirements should be allocated across the models we've proposed today. For illustrative purposes only, if the Commission were to impose a 20 per cent requirement on an online service, the Commission should also specify what portion of that 20 per cent should be devoted to models A and B. Our view is that an appropriate contribution to independent production requires the majority ‑‑ and I will just add the vast majority ‑‑ of the share of CPE requirements be met through model A.

6407 MR. D’OLIVEIRA: In conclusion, we like to say in this business, “It all starts with a script.” And that's true. But someone still needs to bring that script to life, to raise the financing, to hire the creators and crew members ‑‑ including, wait for it, the craft service providers, who deliver the potato salad to set ‑‑ and then producers continue to manage the actual making of the show, shepherd the footage through post, and ultimately deliver it on time and on budget to a platform where audiences can find and enjoy it. That's what producers do. We make it happen.

6408 We encourage you, as you write this new script for our system, that it be inspired by a vision that embraces Canada's creative and commercial potential; a vision that's optimistic and aspirational, that has as its core themes Canadian talent, Canadian creative entrepreneurship, and Canadian ownership; a vision that places big bets, like we do, on Canadians and on Canadian IP. And to the extent that you place your bet on producers, we will take your words on the page and bring to them to life. We will deliver. We will make it happen.

6409 The CMPA thanks the Commission for its attention to these issues and welcomes any questions you may have.

6410 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you for your submissions. Thank you for your participation. I can tell you that the Panel members think that there's some sort of competition going on between intervenors with respect to the use of the term “potato salad.”

‑‑‑ Rires

6411 THE CHAIRPERSON: We will ask our hearing secretary to get to the bottom of that.

6412 So perhaps I could start with a broad question about partnerships, because that is something that you have focused on quite significantly in your submissions. You said that producers and producing are all about partnerships. It's a new world. We want new partnerships. And the question is: how do we get those?

6413 MR. MASTIN: Thank you very much for the question, Chair Eatrides. Facilitating partnerships, fair and robust partnerships, was front of mind when we were putting together the two models that we attached as an appendix to our opening remarks. And if it would be helpful, we can sort of elucidate on your question through giving you sort of a high‑level outline of how we came to these models and why.

6414 So there are two models. One is an independent production model, we call it. It's model A. And then B is a flexible collaborative model, which actually has a number of options within it.

6415 And I should say as a cover note that when we put together these models, we did so envisioning that there would in the new system be an independent expenditure requirement like there long has been through the group licensing process. It may take a different form. We offered some thoughts on that. We're happy to elaborate on that as well, if it would be helpful.

6416 And we also should note that what we've put in this appendix as it relates to the IP definition of Canadian program is specific to independent producers. And the reason why we did that was because, as noted directly in ‑‑ I don't know how many times I'm going to say this particular number in the Act ‑‑ but 10(1.1)(a), our IP provision in the Act, it says that “the Commission shall consider ... whether Canadians, including independent producers ....” So it is our constituency that is specifically referenced in that provision. And we thought, Hey, we represent independent producers, so we would focus our model on the independent producer part of the definition, the IP definition of Canadian content. But we recognize this is not the entire ‑‑ this would not be the entire definition. We wanted to say that up front.

6417 So model A, the independent production model, at its core, it reflects exactly what you were talking with Ms. Hamilton from Lionsgate about. The core of that model is a licensing model where a broadcaster or a streamer pays a licence to an independent producer for the right to monetize that show on that broadcaster or streamer's platform or platforms for a certain period of time. And by acquiring that right through a licence, it is then able to monetize that piece of content the way that streamers and broadcasters have always done, through attracting subscription revenue to it and/or advertising revenue to it.

6418 The other key part of that model, from an independent producer's perspective, is that they retain the IP rights, the exploitation rights to that show. And that enables them, first of all, to go out into the global marketplace and sell that show in markets that are still available to the producer that were not part of the licence agreement with the commissioning broadcaster and streamer, but also to exploit a whole other panoply of rights, format rights, merchandising rights, format rights that are attached to that show.

6419 And to sort of make that real for you, what that model looks like, I'm going to turn to Mark, to talk a little bit about your experience, Mark.

6420 MR. MONTEFIORE: Yeah, thank you. This again, okay. I just want to start out by, first of all, thanking you, and if I was a young producer starting out today in this climate and with the way the industry is set up and currently structured and where some of these proposals are currently going, I don't think I'd be reaching the same level of success that I currently have had today with where things are heading. So it's a little scary‑looking.

6421 My father immigrated from poverty in Italy, believing in the Canadian dream. With no education, he and my mother built and sold businesses, raised four kids, and taught us the value of owning and controlling what we create. Naturally, I became an entrepreneur.

6422 Letterkenny was our first hit. We owned the IP but didn't control all elements to it. We didn't control distribution. Everyone said it was too Canadian to sell. But we did control e‑commerce, selling $25 t‑shirts with catch phrases online ‑‑ some exhibits here. Merchandise sales came in from Dallas, Florida, New York, even Philippines, randomly, and they were all sparked by clips on socials and pirating.

6423 While we didn't have the distribution rights, another company held them, and they weren't selling it because it was too Canadian; comedy was hard to travel. And meanwhile, I'm chomping at the bit to try and sell this show. I know we've got an audience. I know that ‑‑ our socials tell us that, our merchandise tells us that. And but I'm stuck because somebody else controls our rights.

6424 Finally, I get a seat at the table to come in for free and help sell the show. And to my surprise, and not surprise, it was hard to sell the show because all the buyers in the US and internationally kept saying it's too Canadian. Too Canadian. Everything we loved about the show is the reason why it wasn't selling. And comedy is hard to travel. Fine.

6425 So after a very frustrating trip back from Los Angeles, again trying to sell the show ‑‑ for free again ‑‑ my assistant came in my office, who was ‑‑ we were selling T‑shirts. And he goes, “Oh, we sold another T‑shirt to Alabama.” I said, “Cool.” I said, “You know what? Can you print me off a heat map? I want to visualize how many sales we've made into the US.”

6426 And you may have a copy on your desk. I'm not sure if that was distributed or not to you. But here's the heat map. And I don't know if you can see if from there, but this heat map represented zip codes of every single state, including Alaska and Hawaii, that we sold merchandise to. And it was everywhere ‑‑ some states just one, some states multiple. But what the point here was is that for every purchase, there was hundreds if not thousands of audience members behind that in the USA, and we couldn't sell the show.

6427 So I took that heat map and I brought it to our buyers. And that landed us a deal with Hulu. That deal not only got us a deal, but it got us the opportunity to buy back all of our rights from that distributor and kicked off Letterkenny's global expansion now that we had all the rights to be able to control under our umbrella, starting with 12 seasons and 81 episodes of Letterkenny. Spin‑off Shoresy ‑‑ this is Shoresy, hocky show ‑‑ five seasons, 30 episodes, 200,000 live tickets sold across North America. That is playing venues of 1,000 seats to 20,000‑seat arenas, NHL arenas.

6428 We have merchandise including beer ‑‑ sorry, these ones are opened. I got a little nervous before, so I had just a ‑‑ just kidding, here. We got board games, we got Funko Pops, we've got all sorts of stuff here. We got a videogame that's launching shortly in June on Steam, PlayStation, Xbox.

6429 We developed more award‑winning shows, and our profits funded a Toronto studio, allowed us to diversify our business, repatriate control of our IP, grow new metric from three people to 30 staff plus hundreds of more freelancers and expanded into a full content studio across television, podcast tours, gaming, and merch.

6430 If we hadn't had controlled the e‑commerce, we wouldn't have taken that risk. We wouldn't have taken that risk, and Letterkenny might have ended after three seasons without making that US sale. And my company would be a single‑lane glorified service production company. Funny enough, we lost eight dollars for every T‑shirt we sold because we didn't calculate the shipping costs properly. But it had to work out that way, because had we calculated properly, we wouldn't have sold as many, we wouldn't have had this heat map to be able to sell the TV show into the US.

6431 So what I'm most proud of, actually, is we built this business, this Canadian business, employing so many great people. But having my kids, a three‑year‑old and a five‑year‑old, being able to see Dad take entrepreneurial risks because we own and control our assets. We reinvest in Canada, employ Canadians, and help inspire the next generation of entrepreneurs, just like my dad did. Owning and controlling IP by Canadians, Canadian producers, means encouraging entrepreneurial risk‑taking, profits reinvested in Canada, more Canadian jobs, and telling Canadian stories that are beautifully “too Canadian.”

6432 When I read this to my five‑year‑old daughter, she said it's too long. So thank you.

6433 THE CHAIRPERSON: I know you want to continue with the models, most likely. I would just say I got a note, actually, I got a Post‑it note from the Vice‑Chair, and I'm one question in. So I'm off to a very rocky start with my colleagues.

6434 I do want to hear about model B quickly, if we could, and if you could just touch on what you mean by you talked about buy‑outs of producer‑sourced and ‑developed concepts. If you could just explain what you mean by that and how that would work, that would be helpful.

6435 MR. MASTIN: Absolutely. So in fact there's only one other note that I would share about model A before turning to model B, and that is we have specified what we would describe as the bottom‑line needs for a production company in this model in order to meet that threshold of “significant and equitable.”

6436 However, our members also told us in order to facilitate partnerships and flexibility even within that model, they felt it was important that we also propose a code of practice that would apply to this model. And that would envision us negotiating with the streamers and broadcasters ‑‑ they do it in France; they do it in the UK ‑‑ to inject flexibility so that, for example, a broadcaster or streamer would have the opportunity to invest more in a show and thereby get more out of the show. But there would be a framework for that rather than the current environment, which is a free‑for‑all. And when it's a free‑for‑all and an imbalanced system, 95 times out of a hundred, the streamer or the broadcaster just grabs it all. So that's model A.

6437 Model B is the flexible collaborative model. It's inspired in large measure by the give‑and‑take model that you put in the public notice. And our assumption, from a regulatory perspective, that underpinned that model that we try to reflect here is you were basically saying, look, if we're going to envisage a situation where a show that is zero‑per‑cent Canadian‑owned could count as Canadian programming, there needs to be regulatory quid pro quo. And that means it needs to be uber‑Canadian on the creative. So we've taken that concept and included it in model B.

6438 When you asked about Canadian‑developed projects, what are we getting at on there, what we're saying there is for this flexible model, there are really two ways that any kind of show gets made. Either the broadcaster or streamer comes to the producer and says, We have this piece of IP; we want you to produce it. That's what they do for service production for every show. Marvel wants to produce the next Spiderman in Canada; they may decide to hire a Canadian producer to do it. It's their IP from the get‑go. The producer is there to provide a production service, and the show gets made in Canada.

6439 What we're saying in a Canadian‑regulated system is that in a flexible model, you do need to take into account a scenario ‑‑ and this will happen all the time ‑‑ where it's the Canadian producer who has taken the risk and the risk capital in developing a piece of IP, and they bring that IP that they've developed to the streamer. And we want to ensure that even in a model where the streamer might say, This is great; we want to buy it lock, stock, and barrel; we want to own a hundred per cent of it ‑‑ where it's the producer who provided the IP, they should be entitled to an additional remuneration for that show because they're the one that brought the IP to the table, not the streamer or the broadcaster.

6440 And we would propose in that case that we also have ‑‑ it can be the same code of practice that applies to model B, so that again there is some kind of framework for negotiation to ensure that in that case the producer actually does receive additional remuneration in exchange for the fact that they put the IP, develop the IP and now propose to produce that with the streamer broadcaster.

6441 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that. I'll keep rolling.

6442 You suggest imposing an independent production expenditure requirement to Canadian and non‑Canadian broadcasters.

6443 I’m wondering, could adding IP ownership to the definition of Canadian content help advance those same outcomes that you are looking for?

6444 MR. MASTIN: If the question is that ensuring that there is meaningful Canadian ownership in programs that end up being certified by you as part of the new Canadian programming certification requirements, will that absolutely lead to, as Mark described ‑‑ and we can give you countless examples of this ‑‑ the ability of producers to meaningfully invest in great Canadian content for the benefit of their streamer and broadcaster partners and Canadian audiences? Absolutely.

6445 Am I directly answering the question?

6446 THE CHAIRPERSON: So just perhaps a couple more questions, and I will turn things over to my colleagues.

6447 We have heard intervenors talking about the French market. I think you’ve probably heard some of that, about how it’s different. We’ve heard about the established star system.

6448 Should we be looking at different measures to support the English and French content markets, since they each have their own strengths and their own challenges?

6449 MR. STRATI: I think there are already some measures that are in place. I think, you know, that it’s been so long recognition. I know that the AQPM was here and talked about the contributions that are made in the French market in terms of the higher licence fees and the higher contributions that are made by broadcasters. So, you do have ‑‑ in terms of the existing sort of contributions that are made, the two markets do have their differences.

6450 There was a bit of discussion about should there be also a recognition of elements within the definition itself. That could be, as well, because if there are variations between the markets, then that could be recognized, as it has been in other instances before.

6451 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that. Perhaps one last question for me, and I know my colleagues have questions as well.

6452 It’s on incentives, because we’ve heard from a number of intervenors, like MPAC, Netflix, Corus, that incentives can be used for any number of public policy goals, from IP to the creation of news programming.

6453 I know that CMPA is not a fan of incentives, but at the same time the policy direction says that we should be considering incentives.

6454 So, the question is: Could incentives be effective in supporting at risk programming?

6455 MR. STRATI: Yes, and I think you've identified what kinds of incentives. I would characterize incentives of always being in favour of the person asking for the incentive as opposed to its impact and consequence on others.

6456 So often the incentive is a credit, i.e., to reduce spending. A lot of other incentives have been discussed over the years. Should it be a percentage of your overall programming budget? Should there be different elements attached to incentives?

6457 But what it comes down to is when you want to have at‑risk programming, I think the model that we’ve talked about is to provide ‑‑ is there an incentive and an opportunity to look at flexible models? And those flexible models are for ownership in order to invest and partner in the Canadian content for the Canadian system and to participate globally with that as well.

6458 So, it’s an incentive. It is an incentive, but it’s an operational incentive and investment incentive, but also to work within the realities of what is a regulated broadcasting system in Canada.

6459 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that. Thank you for answering my questions.

6460 I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Theberge.

6461 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. I have so many questions, I’m trying to figure out what to ask.

6462 Maybe I’ll start with a series of broad questions. And thank you for being here.

6463 And congratulations, Mr. Montefiore, on the success of your content and your enterprise. You talked about the need to encourage, and I quote, entrepreneurial risk taking.

6464 I was curious whether there was anything in our current regulatory model that, in your view, or the view of your colleague, prevents the entrepreneurial risk taking and whether in the challenges you face, some of them were rooted in some of the regulatory measures that we currently have in place? Or are we talking about two things completely separate?

6465 MR. MASTIN: Is it okay if I jump in first?

6466 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Up to you. You negotiate with your colleague.

6467 MR. MASTIN: Thank you. What we would broadly say on that question is not that the regulatory system has created regulatory obstacles to ensuring that Canadian producers can make their full contribution to the system, but in fact that there is a gap, a regulatory gap that needs to be filled. And that, of course, relates to IP ownership.

6468 As you were congratulating our colleague, as he noted, the success of that show indisputably came from his control of the rights associated with that show.

6469 What our members tell us year after year is that their ability to meaningfully retain rights to their own IP erodes every year, and that erosion is accelerated with the emergence and dominance of foreign online streaming services and their unique innovative, never antiquated, business model.

6470 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Well, how would you then respond to folks who say if you want those partnerships and if you want the visibility that comes and the market ‑‑ not the market but the financial fruits that come with more partnerships, you need to show some flex on IP, because that becomes a chip that helps you negotiate.

6471 There are various ways that you can negotiate IP in the context of international partnerships. Like in co‑pros, we certainly see some sharing of IP.

6472 What would be your answer to that?

6473 MR. MASTIN: One hundred percent the case that's something that producers excel at, and it’s also a business necessity. And it’s something I know they welcome.

6474 I’m going to turn it over to Erin to talk a bit about that.

6475 MS. HASKETT: Sure. I mean, like Mark, I think the IP ownership has been key to our success at Lark. What you are talking about, the origin story of Lark was just at the tail end of terms of trade. So, those practices that existed are sort of what our company was built on.

6476 We also have a relationship with NBCUniversal International, so that connection to the global marketplace was meaningful for us.

6477 But I would say the thing that has been most impactful in our ability as a company to take risks, we are a Vancouver‑based company, so we sit in the middle of the service hotbed of our country, and we do only domestic production. So, what has set us apart is the distribution revenues that we receive from the shows that we’ve made in Canada.

6478 So, we’ve made with Canadian partners and international distributors that have gone and sold those rights all around the world, and we benefit from that. So we are able to invest those revenues back in, not only to the infrastructure of our company, building the next generation of producers and development talent, but we are allowed to compete against the American studios in IP. You know, we’ve seen books and adaptation rights go to the U.S. that are Canadian authors for a long time. When you have resources in your pockets to be able to get in on those offers, you are able to take those risks.

6479 And the only way to do that is really from the upside of a project you’ve produced that has been successful.

6480 Hopefully, that answers your question.

6481 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Yes, and you've just given me a nice segue to my next question, which is also a very broad question.

6482 Yesterday, we heard from one intervenor that you need to be successful at home, and that will trigger international interest.

6483 The scope of this particular proceeding, as you can see, and the entire implementation of the Modernization Act, it’s quite broad, so it’s important for us also to be able to know where we should focus our attention to make a most meaningful impact.

6484 AQPM also said similar in regards to French language production. They said domestic market is key. This is where you should be focusing.

6485 They did talk about a code of practice as well, a framework for negotiation, but I won’t get into that because I don’t have the time.

6486 To what extent should facilitating international partnership be the focus for the Commission, or are we just spreading too thin and we should rather turn our attention exclusively to reinforcing the demand ‑‑ not the demand, the supply of Canadian content, because by doing that, it will lead to an international interest?

6487 MR. MASTIN: I think it depends on how the Commission envisions facilitating those international partnerships.

6488 Just to give you a concrete example of what our concern would be, and we will just take the example of the give‑and‑take model that was put on the table as part of the Public Notice. And we recognize that it was exploratory.

6489 What was very interesting to us about our producer members’ reaction to your model is that everyone understood the implicit regulatory bargain that was embedded in that model, but then they looked at that model in terms of their own business experience and how that translates into deals that are actually done.

6490 So in a model that is purely give and take, what typically happens is the following. When a producer sits down with the streamer, for example, and the streamer says congratulations, we want to produce this show with you, but we do have a number of unique and innovative ways that we do business. So here are our terms.

6491 We want the show for the Planet Earth. We want to show it globally everywhere, every market in the world that we’re in, which is virtually all of them for certain streamers. We want to show it everywhere. We want to have it effectively forever, so that if you do get it back in the long‑distant future, it will have been out in the entire global marketplace so long that it essentially will have been burned out by the time it gets to you.

6492 And more often than not, if we really like it, we want to actually buy it holus‑bolus from you. Not just the right to exhibit it, but all the rights that Mark was talking about that are attached to piece of IP.

6493 Now, because we’ve got thousands of pieces of content on our service, we may actually not exploit any of those rights. If it had stayed with you, because you have every incentive as a producer to exploit them, maybe they will get exploited. But we have so many, even if the odds are astronomically small that we’re going to do a spinoff or we’re going to do merchandising, because we just can take it from you, we can just buy it from you, we are taking it all, because it gives us another advantage, which is that piece of IP now is an asset in our catalogue. It increases the value of our company. It enables us collectively to increase and attract investment in our country, to borrow against that asset catalogue, all those things which you, independent producer, will no longer be able to do, because you no longer own that piece of IP.

6494 All of that benefit will accrue to us.

6495 Now, here’s the good news. We are going to pay you for it. We’re going to pay you for it. And we have a very sophisticated system, based on our experience on how a similar piece of IP like yours has performed in all of these markets that we operate in.

6496 Now, we’re not going to give you a single shred of data on how we arrived at that valuation, because that information is more confidential than the nuclear codes, and we know that you have no meaningful ability to objectively determine whether the valuation we’re putting on the table has any basis in market reality or actually reflects anything approximating what we actually think the value of the show is. But that’s the price of doing business, and also that’s why trust is so important in any commercial relationship.

6497 And here ‑‑ and this is the thing that deeply concerns us ‑‑ is the fifth unique and innovative business model tweak that they have made.

6498 They will say more often, every year, you know what, producing is a really hard job. We want to take that burden off of you. We are going to remove the burden of you producing your own show, because you know what, we’ve got this roster of production executives in LA and trusted line producers we work with all over the world, and we’re just going to give your show to them. But you know what? You’re going to love what we do with that show.

6499 So, this is a scenario that increasingly plays itself out in a system where it is a true free‑for‑all. And that is why we have proposed, inspired by the model that you put on the table, a very flexible model for IP ownership. To be very clear, we would propose that that model would make up a very small portion of an expenditure obligation for the streamer or broadcaster ‑‑ for all three we just identified. But in each case, there would be a code of practice to say all right, if it’s the producer’s IP, and we want to buy it lock, stock and barrel, there is a framework for negotiating the value of that price that’s going to be paid to obtain the IP.

6500 That is what is at stake for our members through this proceeding.

6501 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. That was a very good answer. A lot of passion.

6502 You wanted to add? Thank you.

6503 MR. MONTEFIORE: Yes, I just wanted to add a couple of examples there.

6504 First of all, I want to thank you for correctly pronouncing my last name earlier. So, thank you very much. It’s amazing.

6505 So to Reynolds’ point there, I’ve got two examples, an example of where the broadcaster recently on some of our latest deals, Canadian buyers have been taking more rights, all rights, and paying less for them. But on top of that, they are not monetizing the rights they are getting. They are sitting on the rights. It’s a complete land grab.

6506 I have specific examples of I’m trying to sell their shows that we don’t have the rights to, even to benefit the local buyer, for airline rights, and they are not selling them. So, I’m going out and doing those deals on their behalf, and then when I bring the deals to the table, like yeah, okay, we’ll make that deal. Why aren’t you selling it? You’re getting the rights that you didn’t pay for, and you are sitting on them.

6507 So that’s not benefiting them, it’s not benefiting us. It benefits nobody. So, they’ve invested in making a show to sit on these rights.

6508 Now on the flip side, the example of not getting data, so where we’ve controlled the merchandise rights were in the U.S. They don’t give us any data about how the show’s performing. When it comes to renegotiation, we actually know how our show’s performing, because we’ve got the data of what our merchandise sales are.

6509 So, we can see like oh, show dropped on February 1st. We had a massive spike in merchandise, more so compared to last season. It’s hard to say the show is not doing as well as the previous season.

6510 So, this is why it’s important us controlling our own rights to be able to monitor and police and be able to monetize all these opportunities where others aren’t.

6511 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Montefiore.

6512 MR. MONTEFIORE: Thank you.

6513 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: I'm getting bullied by the Chair because we ran out of time, and I have 12 questions.

6514 Maybe we will follow up with some RFIs on some things specific. I know the team doesn’t like me to say that, but I think it’s important.

6515 Maybe just one last question on at‑risk programming. If you have been following the hearing, you probably heard some intervenors saying that it should be the sole responsibility of the public broadcaster, at least specific genres, including kids programming.

6516 I think we had Rogers this morning questioning whether there was such a thing as at‑risk programming.

6517 I was just interested in hearing your views on this idea that wherever there is a genre that isn’t supported by market forces, that should not be the responsibility of the private sector. It should be the responsibility of the public section.

6518 I would just be interested in hearing your views on this.

6519 MR. STRATI: Sure. I mean, I know at‑risk programming, I think we look at it also within the context of what are the programming commitments.

6520 You have heard a lot today and yesterday and days before that about audience demand. It seems when we talk about Canadian content, it seems to only talk about certain types of shows. And then when you talk about the envelope of services that are offered by the group, which has been provided by the CRTC to pool its resources to spend in different places, then we avoid sort of the different shows.

6521 But if you look at the shows that are offered, there’s a lot of different, whether it’s drama or documentaries, whether it’s other places. So, the opportunity is to reflect what the services are providing.

6522 But in addition to that, there is also an obligation and a commitment not just on the public broadcaster, but also the private broadcasters, to say what are our contributions, collectively, that we can provide for some of the objectives that the CRTC has? Maybe it’s in the area of news. Maybe it’s in the area of kids programming or documentaries. But there are collective responsibilities that come with being part of a regulated system. They are still collecting subscriptions and advertising from a number of different people within the house that have multiple streams and access to multiple streams. So, what are they also doing for those types of programming?

6523 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. That’s all.

6524 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, let's go to Commissioner Paquette. Thank you.

6525 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And it's just a small question about something that is not totally clear for me yet.

6526 In the examples that you provided us about the importance of IP for the exportation of production or brand here in Canada or around the world, does it make a difference if it’s 51 percent of the IP or 80 percent or 100 percent? Is there a level that is kind of a goal in terms of level of IP that should be owned, the proportion of IP that should be owned?

6527 MR. MASTIN: I certainly also welcome any comments that other members of the panel might want to make on this.

6528 It’s a hard question to answer, in the sense that we think the core mandate when it comes to IP is that overwhelmingly for a program to count as a Canadian program, it should be 100 percent owned and controlled by a Canadian. That’s the bottom line.

6529 We recognize even within the existing system now, take, for example, co‑ventures, they don’t specifically reference ownership per se, copyright ownership, which is why also we would propose that a code of practice could address issues like that, that are unintended consequences that flow from the framework as it exists today.

6530 But that has to be the priority focus for the Commission.

6531 In Model B, as we’re proposing ‑‑ which we again hope is a small slice of the expenditure requirement ‑‑ there would be a lot of room to manoeuvre in terms of what would be the appropriate level of ownership between the streamer and broadcaster and the producer.

6532 And we have put in there, as you will see, I mean literally zero to 100 scale in percentage in terms of what ownership would look like, with certain parameters attached.

6533 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I saw you, Mr. Montefiore, say ‑‑ would a 51 percent IP ownership in your model have worked to reach the level of success that you had?

6534 MR. MONTEFIORE: I don't see the point of it, personally. It’s 100 percent, in my eyes. The funding partners and equity partners can participate commercially, and we have relationships and partnerships where we own 100 percent of the copyright. Administratively, it’s a lot easier that way, but our partners get a significant portion of the profits.

6535 And ultimately, at the end of the day that’s all they really care about anyway. So, I think there’s ways to solve it commercially.

6536 MR. SMITH: If I could just add as well, I think this speaks to the reason why there’s two halves to the models, Model A and Model B, because this question specifically is so contextual and depends entirely on who you are doing business with.

6537 If, for example, you and your business partner are very much of the same mind as to how this property should be monetized, how it should be exploited in the market, it may make sense. And that is contemplated by Model B.

6538 But Model A also ensures that there is an opportunity for you to potentially not have to compromise, for you to remain entirely the captain of your own ship, so to speak, when it comes to your IP.

6539 I just wanted to clarify that as well.

6540 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you very much.

6541 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much for the discussion. Thank you for the concrete example. That was very helpful.

6542 We will turn things back over to you for any concluding remarks.

6543 MR. MASTIN: Thank you, Chair Eatrides.

6544 One quick programming note, which comes from notes that people have been sending me: you didn’t say this, you didn’t say this.

6545 The thing that I should have said in the Q&A is that there is in 10.1.1, there are actually five sub‑paragraphs, including (d), as in David, and (a) we call the IP paragraph, (d) we call the sleeper paragraph.

6546 The reasons for that, just to read the relevant portion is that:

“The Commission shall consider the extent to which persons carrying on online undertakings or programming undertakings collaborate with independent Canadian producers.”

6547 So, we would propose that to give meaning to (d), which in some manner, shape or form of course you will do, an elegant innovative forward thinking way of doing it, to quote our friends who appeared before you earlier, is through codes of practice, negotiated codes of practice.

6548 You can check of yes, online services and Canadian broadcasters are collaborating with independent producers, because they have agreed to a code of practice between the parties.

6549 The other two comments in conclusion, if you will allow us to make, are the following.

6550 The first is it did strike us through this, and every hearing is similar here, you must sometimes wonder whether the stakeholders in our system agree on anything. And is it all just adversarial?

6551 And, unfortunately, I think the nature of the exercise is you tend to hear about all the pain points, quite understandably, perhaps. I think it is just important to say that one of the things that all of us do have in common in this industry is the fact that we love collaborating together, most obviously in production.

6552 I don’t know how many times I’ve heard from a producer the high they get from the creative collaboration that happens on a show, but also in countless other ways that would never even fall under your radar.

6553 Just one example. We, because we represent the employers on set, we negotiate all the collective agreements with the actors, writers, directors, etc. The people who sit right next to us on our side of the table are the streamers and the studios, the Hollywood streamers and studios, and their labour executives. And we learn from them every single day.

6554 And no matter how contentious it gets at the bargaining table, outside of the bargaining table we are intensely collaborative together. It’s all about how do we build this industry.

6555 So, I just wanted to say that as one note.

6556 And the other note is this. We deeply admire Hollywood. We all recognize that it is, and has always been, the entertainment superpower of the world for all the reasons that we know. But we just want to underscore one reason that’s not talked about, not talked about enough, and that is that it has as its backer the most powerful government the world has ever seen. And successive U.S. administrations, whether from the blue team or the red team, including whatever shade of red the current red team is, successive administrations have supported that industry, both at home and especially abroad. Not only through the White House but through the State Department, including that big, beautiful building across the river and one block from Parliament Hill, the U.S International Trade Commission.

6557 We could list all the organizations, the instruments of that government and the exercise of its power and its influence in order to promote the interests of the audiovisual industry in the U.S.

6558 And why do they do that? Because they know that Hollywood is an instrument for the exercise of American power and influence in the world.

6559 So, we have always been on the front lines of that, us more than any other country, any other industry. And I would say this. Notwithstanding all those pressures, here we all are. And it’s a miracle that we are here.

6560 You, in partnership with this industry, have created something extraordinary, even with all of its pressures and stresses. Just talking about domestic production, four billion and change last year in Canadian programming. It is an extraordinary achievement. And you now have the opportunity to build on that.

6561 So, we would ask you to, through this process, give all the players in our system, including producers, the tools that we need so that we can be the best possible partners with our broadcaster partners and our streaming partners, because we’ll tell you this: Whatever rules you set, and we recognize there could be some judicial detours, whatever that looks like. That’s all part. It’s the way it works in our system. But when the final rules are set by you, those American streaming services will flip a switch and go okay, how do we make the best content based on these rules that the CRTC has established?

6562 And we want to make sure that we have the tools when that comes to be the best possible partners to make that happen. And for that, we do need you.

6563 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for your very passionate submissions. We really appreciate it, and we appreciate all of you being here with us today. Thank you.

6564 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We'll take a lunch break and be back at 1:30.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 12 h 43

‑‑‑ Reprise à 13 h 31

6565 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Bienvenue. Nous entendrons maintenant la présentation de l’Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada. S’il vous plaît vous présenter et vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

6566 M^me PILON : Bonjour, Madame la Présidente, Madame la Vice‑présidente, Monsieur le Vice‑président, Mesdames les Conseillères, membres du personnel du Conseil.

6567 Je vous remercie de me recevoir. Je suis Carol Ann Pilon, directrice générale de l’Alliance des producteurs francophones du Canada.

6568 Aujourd’hui, je m’exprime au nom des producteurs francophones issus des communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire de l’ensemble du Canada. Des producteurs qui ne se contentent pas de simplement raconter des histoires canadiennes, mais qui incarnent une identité, une culture et une réalité distinctes.

6569 Nous ne sommes pas le Québec. Nous ne sommes pas le reflet francophone de la majorité anglophone. Nous sommes uniques et diversifiés. Et notre identité distincte mérite d’être reconnue, célébrée et préservée.

6570 Nos membres créent du contenu original en langue française, enraciné dans les communautés linguistiques minoritaires ‑‑ du Yukon à la Nouvelle‑Écosse, en passant par la Colombie‑Britannique, l’Alberta, le Manitoba, l’Ontario et le Nouveau‑Brunswick. Chaque production que nous réalisons est un acte de résilience culturelle. Chaque histoire que nous racontons renforce le tissu social et la vitalité des communautés francophones à travers le pays.

6571 Et pourtant, sans des mesures réglementaires fortes et spécifiques, ce secteur de production dynamique ‑‑ et l’identité distincte qu’il porte ‑‑ risque de disparaître.

6572 Notre position est simple et limpide. Nous demandons au Conseil d’imposer à toutes les entreprises de radiodiffusion des exigences fermes, contraignantes et minimales en matière de dépenses de programmation originale de première diffusion en langue française produite par et pour les CLOSMs.

6573 Toutes les entreprises de nature à pouvoir répondre à une telle obligation devraient se voir imposer des exigences précises en matière de dépenses pour la production indépendante CLOSM francophone. Celles qui respectent déjà ces obligations, comme Radio‑Canada et TV5‑Unis, doivent continuer à le faire.

6574 Pour toute entreprise pour laquelle de telles dépenses seraient inappropriées en raison de la nature de ses services, un montant équivalent doit être versé à des fonds destinés à soutenir la création de contenu original en langue française pour les producteurs des CLOSMs.

6575 Ces dépenses ‑‑ ou les contributions équivalentes ‑‑ permettront au Conseil d’assurer l’atteinte des objectifs fondamentaux de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion et de remplir ses obligations les plus fondamentales, soit :

6576 ‑ de veiller à ce que le système de radiodiffusion prenne en compte les besoins et les intérêts propres des CLOSMs;

6577 ‑ de réglementer et de surveiller le système de radiodiffusion de manière à favoriser la présentation aux Canadiens d’émissions canadiennes créées et produites par les CLOSMs ; et

6578 ‑ de favoriser l’épanouissement des CLOSMs du Canada et d’appuyer leur développement.

6579 Les incitatifs en crédits de dépenses ne suffisent pas, n’ont jamais suffi et ne suffiront jamais. Rien ne prouve que les incitatifs fonctionnent ni qu’ils aient jamais fonctionné. Ne vous laissez pas tromper : ceux qui réclament des crédits au nom de la « flexibilité » le font en sachant très bien qu’ils ne les utiliseront jamais.

6580 Nous reconnaissons que le cadre réglementaire actuel doit être modernisé et nous ne suggérons pas une simple transposition de l’ancien modèle dans un nouvel environnement. Mais nous demandons au Conseil de reconnaître l’importance et la spécificité des auditoires des CLOSMs au Canada.

6581 D’ailleurs, la Loi sur la radiodiffusion l’exige.

6582 Mesdames et messieurs les Conseillers, si l’identité a de l’importance ‑‑ et elle doit en avoir ‑‑ alors notre système de radiodiffusion doit protéger, refléter et promouvoir les identités distinctes des CLOSMs. La meilleure façon d’y parvenir est d’exiger que ceux qui bénéficient de notre système y contribuent par le biais d’obligations de dépenses en émissions canadiennes produites par les CLOSMs.

6583 L’importance de la propriété intellectuelle a été largement soulignée au cours de cette instance. Comme d’autres, nous croyons que détenir les droits sur nos histoires est essentiel pour exprimer librement nos cultures, nos valeurs et nos idées, sans crainte de censure ou d’acculturation.

6584 Assurer aux communautés, notamment aux groupes en quête d’équité comme les francophones en situation minoritaire, le pouvoir de créer et de tirer parti de leur propriété intellectuelle contribue à éliminer les barrières systémiques, renforce leur autonomie et permet de bâtir une société plus inclusive où elles peuvent pleinement tirer profit du succès de leurs contenus.

6585 Si le Conseil n’exige pas que la propriété intellectuelle d’au moins une partie de la programmation canadienne soit détenue par des producteurs indépendants canadiens, les entreprises étrangères en ligne donneront l’impression de produire davantage de « contenu canadien », alors qu’elles ne feront que récolter des crédits pour les contenus qu’elles produisaient déjà pour leur auditoire international.

6586 De même, si le Conseil n’impose pas qu’une proportion du contenu canadien soit produit indépendamment d’entreprises titulaires de licence ou réglementées, la riche diversité de notre système actuel se contractera.

6587 Cela ne peut être le résultat de tout le travail, l’énergie et les efforts investis par les Canadiens et le gouvernement canadien pour adopter la Loi sur la radiodiffusion continue en ligne et mettre en œuvre ce nouveau cadre de radiodiffusion.

6588 Ce qui distingue notre culture, particulièrement de celle de nos voisins du sud, c’est en partie, nos deux langues officielles. Nous demandons que le système réglementé par le Conseil reconnaisse cette différence fondamentale et que le Conseil lui accorde toute l’importance et la valeur qu’elle mérite, comme l’exige la loi.

6589 Sans une action ciblée immédiate, le Canada risque de perdre une partie irremplaçable de son âme culturelle et linguistique. L’APFC demande au Conseil de faire les choix qui s’imposent pour assurer l’avenir du contenu issu des communautés francophones en situation minoritaire et, à travers nous, l’avenir d’un système de radiodiffusion canadien véritablement bilingue et véritablement diversifié.

6590 Merci. Je suis à votre disposition pour répondre à vos questions.

6591 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup pour votre soumission. Merci pour votre présentation cet après‑midi. On va commencer les questions avec la vice‑présidente. Merci.

6592 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci. Merci, Madame la Présidente. Bonjour, Madame Pilon. Ça nous fait plaisir de vous avoir ici. Merci de vous être déplacé.

6593 Je vais peut‑être commencer par des questions un peu plus pointues sur la définition en tant que telle, qui fait partie évidemment de nos discussions. Vous affirmez dans votre intervention que l'ajout de postes clés de création dans la liste propre à la définition aurait peu d'impact sur le financement des contenus pour les CLOSMs en raison du fait que les productions en français sont déjà majoritairement canadiennes.

6594 Mais j'aimerais vous entendre sur la flexibilité que demandent plusieurs intervenants quant à l'obligation de confier certains postes à des Canadiens ou à des non canadiens, notamment pour faciliter les partenariats étrangers ‑‑ vous avez certainement entendu les suggestions qui ont été faites à cet effet ‑‑ et dans quelle mesure est‑ce que c’est problématique de votre point de vue. Et voilà, je vais commencer par une question très, très générale comme ça.

6595 M^me PILON : Donc, en termes de partenariat, lorsque vous avez procédé l'hiver dernier à demander des données aux plateformes, à savoir s'ils investissaient dans la production de langue française et dans la production CLOSM, vous avez vu le résultat qui a été déposé au dossier public, c'est‑à‑dire que les plateformes ne travaillent pas avec les producteurs CLOSM en ce moment.

6596 Donc, termes de... à savoir si une modification dans la définition de la loi va encourager ces partenariats‑là, encore là, la plupart des intervenants qui se sont présentés jusqu'à présent ont indiqué ne pas avoir intérêt nécessairement à travailler ou à avoir des obligations pour des groupes en quête d'équité, y compris des CLOSMs.

6597 Donc, on ne pense pas que c'est la façon de créer des partenariats entre les producteurs indépendants des CLOSMs et les plateformes. On pense plutôt que celles qui doivent et peuvent et toutes doivent. Mais celles qui peuvent faire des dépenses en émissions canadiennes avec les CLOSMs devraient se voir imposer des obligations de dépenses. Celles qui, à cause de la nature de leurs services, ne sont pas en mesure de le faire devraient investir un montant équivalent dans des fonds qui seraient dédiés spécifiquement pour la production CLOSM de langue française.

6598 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Donc, si j'ai bien compris ce que vous venez de dire, ce n'est pas en introduisant de la flexibilité dans la définition qu'on va nécessairement mettre la table pour faciliter des partenariats avec les plateformes étrangères. Alors, quelle est la façon, d'une part, et est‑ce que c'est pertinent pour les CLOSMs de créer un environnement réglementaire qui facilite les partenariats étrangers? Ou votre business est ailleurs et vous êtes davantage concentrés sur la production domestique pour une consommation domestique?

6599 M^me PILON : Bien, je pense, ce qu'il faut regarder, c'est où sont les auditoires. Et les auditoires sont sur les plateformes, y compris les auditoires des CLOSMs francophones. Parce qu'il faut comprendre que les gens qui vivent dans les communautés francophones en situation minoritaire, le terme le dit, ils vivent dans des communautés anglophones.

6600 Ils sont comme le Québec, mais encore plus, je crois, inondés de contenu de langue anglaise dans leur communauté. Donc, pour pouvoir les atteindre et rejoindre ces publics‑là et particulièrement les jeunes, qui sont notre avenir et l'avenir de la langue française à l'extérieur du Québec, il faut être capable d'avoir des contenus qui soient accessibles à travers ces moyens‑là.

6601 C'est sûr que nos radiodiffuseurs canadiens ont besoin aussi de soutien en ce sens pour s'assurer qu’ils ont les moyens de payer les licences nécessaires et investir les montants nécessaires dans la production pour que ce contenu‑là puisse faire concurrence et se démarquer dans cette mer de contenu anglophone.

6602 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : On va certainement en parler lors de la prochaine audience, là, qui va s'attarder aux dynamiques de marché, la question de l'accès va être probablement au cœur de nos discussions, mais vous l'avez mentionné, c'est une question de s'assurer aussi que les représentants des communautés des CLOSMs aient accès à ces contenus. Ce qui m'amène sur la question de la découvrabilité. Il y a certains intervenants qui ont proposé d'imposer des obligations de découvrabilité aux plateformes. J'aurais aimé vous entendre un petit peu là‑dessus, est‑ce qu'à votre avis c'est quelque chose qui est important à considérer? À quoi ça pourrait ressembler?

6603 M^me PILON : Bien, pour être découvrable, un contenu doit exister. Alors, ça, c'est la base. S'il n’y a pas d'obligation auprès des radiodiffuseurs, qu’ils soient canadiens, étrangers, traditionnels ou en ligne, pour produire du contenu de langue française par et pour les CLOSMs, ce contenu‑là ne pourra pas être découvert. Ça fait que, ça, c'est la clé pour répondre à l'accès à du contenu de langue française dans les communautés francophones.

6604 Après, bien, oui, il faut bien sûr que ces contenus‑là soient commandés ou achetés par les plateformes en ligne et les radiodiffuseurs traditionnels. Et, ensuite, en ce qui concerne la découvrabilité en ligne, il faut que ces contenus‑là soient aussi suggérés sans forcément qu'ils se trouvent toujours et uniquement dans un menu spécifique à la production CLOSM ou la production francophone. Il faut que, si les algorithmes proposent des contenus aux Canadiens basés sur les préférences, il faut aussi que des contenus de langue française soient proposés à ces clients, à ces abonnés.

6605 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Toujours sur la question de la… Merci pour votre réponse, là. Toujours sur la question de la définition, une des questions qui a été posée dans l'avis de consultation, c'est sur l'opportunité ou non d'introduire un critère culturel dans la définition. Certains intervenants sont allés plus loin, ont même parlé d'un critère culturel linguistique. Est‑ce que c'est quelque chose à votre avis qui est pertinent à considérer? Et, si oui, à quoi ça pourrait ressembler et quel défi ça pourrait soulever, d'une part?

6606 Et il y a d'autres personnes qui ont parlé aussi du fait que la définition, une seule et unique définition qui s'applique à tout le monde, ce n'est pas nécessairement la façon optimale de refléter la réalité, par exemple, des deux marchés linguistiques au Canada. Alors, j'aurais aimé un peu vous entendre sur les aménagements à faire ou à ne pas faire pour la définition, de façon à ce que ça serve bien les intérêts des entreprises et des producteurs que vous représentez.

6607 M^me PILON : On ne croit pas que l'ajout d'un test culturel devrait faire partie de la définition du contenu canadien. Nous croyons que les postes clés qui sont énumérés et qui font partie de la certification sont suffisants. Et les bons critères pour déterminer si un contenu est réellement canadien, ça vient avec le producteur, qui est essentiel, et tous les postes de production qui sont désignés, qui sont essentiels, le ou la réalisatrice, scénariste et comédien. Tous ces éléments culturels, tant qu'à nous, assurent que ce sont bel et bien des histoires canadiennes qui sont racontées et du point de vue canadien.

6608 Donc, on croit que le système en ce moment fonctionne bien, à l'exception du fait que la certification au CRTC ne comprend pas à l'heure actuelle la propriété intellectuelle. Donc, nous on suggérait que… on demanderait au CRTC d'aligner ses critères d'admissibilité et d'éligibilité pour du contenu canadien à ceux du BCPAC tels qu'ils existent aujourd'hui.

6609 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Je vais vous pousser un petit peu sur la question de la définition parce qu’on a eu aussi des intervenants qui nous ont, sans remettre en question la nomenclature des postes créatifs, nous ont dit que, des fois, ça leur crée des problèmes opérationnels bien réels, notamment du côté du documentaire.

6610 On sait que des documentaristes, souvent, qui ont des projets à l'étranger, doivent avoir recours pour toutes sortes de raisons à des gens qui ne sont pas nécessairement canadiens et que le modèle actuel ou la définition telle qu'elle se comprend présentement devient un frein réel. Est‑ce qu'on pourrait imaginer un système ou une définition avec certaines exceptions ou avec des déclinaisons de façon à pouvoir s'appliquer à ces types de production, notamment les documentaires?

6611 M^me PILON : Il faudrait que je voie qu'est‑ce qui est proposé en termes de définition alternative pour certains genres. Et on le fera bien sûr en étudiant les propositions qui ont été avancées pendant les audiences et on pourra vous revenir au moment des observations finales. Mais je vous dirais que la base étant que, en ce moment, il faut atteindre 6 sur 10 points pour pouvoir se qualifier comme contenu canadien, ce minimum, ce plancher devrait être maintenu. Voilà ce que je peux vous dire pour le moment.

6612 Mais, bien sûr, si… Le documentaire on sait qu’il souffre et qu’il a besoin d'amour et de soutien. Donc, si on était en mesure de qualifier une définition spécifique pour un genre qui en a besoin, l'APFC est bien sûr ouverte à explorer ses possibilités.

6613 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Parfait. Merci. Je vais peut‑être passer rapidement sur le cadre de dépenses et je sais que mes collègues auront des questions, notamment sur la programmation à risque visant la programmation pour enfants, mais, de façon plus générale sur la programmation à risque, certains nous ont suggéré qu’elle devrait strictement relever du diffuseur public.

6614 M^me PILON : L'APFC est absolument contre cette prémisse. La responsabilité d'assurer les objectifs de la loi s'applique à tout le système, pas juste au radiodiffuseur public. Bien qu'il est essentiel de soutenir notre radiodiffuseur public pour qu'il soit en mesure de répondre à son vaste mandat et son important mandat, il est erroné de penser que les francophones en milieu minoritaire ne consomment que leur contenu via Radio‑Canada. Ce serait de priver une partie importante de la population canadienne d'avoir accès à du contenu de langue française produit par et pour eux.

6615 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Et si la Commission devait donner suite à son point de vue préliminaire qu'elle a indiqué dans son avis de consultation au sujet des émissions d'intérêt national, c'est‑à‑dire d'éliminer, à votre avis, quelle mesure pourrait être rajoutée à notre cadre réglementaire de façon à assurer l'appui aux CLOSMs tel qu'il est prérequis dans la loi?

6616 M^me PILON : En termes d’EIN?

6617 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Oui

6618 M^me PILON : Donc, en ce moment, il n’y a que deux radiodiffuseurs dans tout le système qui ont des obligations de dépenses en émissions canadiennes CLOSM francophone : Radio‑Canada et TV5Unis. La quasi‑totalité de ce contenu, ce sont des émissions d'intérêt national. Et il y a pratiquement très, très peu d'émissions non EIN qui sont commandées aux producteurs francophones en milieu minoritaire.

6619 Donc, si on éliminait cette catégorie et qu'on ne faisait pas une place pour ces genres qui sont, un, on le sait, coûteux et fragilisés… Et bien qu’il n’y a peut‑être pas une catégorie pour jeunesse en ce moment, les contenus jeunesse se retrouvent à être des émissions d'intérêt national aussi, je pense que, pour nous, le milieu, l'industrie s'effondrerait.

6620 Et c'est souvent à travers ce type d'émissions qu'on véhicule notre culture, nos valeurs, nos histoires, notre identité. Donc, ce serait et de penser que les plateformes vont le faire avec les CLOSMs sans être réglementées, bien, ils vous l'ont dit sans s'en cacher qu'ils n'avaient aucune intention de le faire. Donc... Et le système de radiodiffusion traditionnel, déjà, est déficitaire par rapport à ce qu’on offre en termes de contenu francophone produit à l'extérieur du Québec.

6621 Comme je vous ai dit, il n’y a que deux diffuseurs qui ont des obligations. Et les données le démontrent, les données du FMC le démontrent que les diffuseurs privés font très peu de dépenses avec les CLOSMs. Donc, vraiment ce sont… Et bien que vous avez tenté de mettre des incitatifs par le passé pour les encourager à le faire, comme on l'a démontré dans notre mémoire qu'on vous a déposé en janvier, sur une période, je pense, de presque six ou sept ans, je crois qu’il y a 87 millions de dollars qui ont été rapportés au CRTC en utilisant ce crédit de CLOSM. Il y a 1.4 pour cent de ça qui a été rapporté par les diffuseurs francophones privés qui ont accès.

6622 Donc, ça démontre que l'incitatif n'a pas eu ses impacts. Et je vous dirais que le meilleur incitatif qui puisse exister pour encourager les radiodiffuseurs à travailler avec les producteurs des CLOSMs, c'est le Fonds des médias du Canada, qui réserve une part de son enveloppe pour la production francophone en milieu minoritaire. Et, là, on a vu vraiment un réel changement et une croissance dans le milieu.

6623 Et, ça, ça a été… il y a eu une convergence lorsque Radio‑Canada, ses obligations de dépenses CLOSM francophones ont augmenté. TV5Unis aussi, les leurs ont augmenté. Et, au moment de la transaction Astral‑Bell, Bell a aussi eu des obligations de dépenses . Et, tout ça, ça s'est passé en 2013. Et je pense qu'on est passés de 34 millions, un volume de 34 millions de dollars en production indépendante à presque le double aujourd'hui. Donc, ce qui fonctionne, c'est une réglementation qui oblige des dépenses en émissions canadiennes et des fonds dédiés à la francophonie canadienne.

6624 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Je vais peut‑être vous poser juste une dernière question, parce que je veux donner la chance à mes collègues d'intervenir aussi, sur les données. Vous avez mentionné dans votre intervention que le CRTC devrait fournir aux CLOSMs des données pertinentes concernant le contenu francophone. Pourriez‑vous préciser quels types de données vous considérez comme étant pertinents pour votre démarche?

6625 M^me PILON : Des données de dépenses en émissions canadiennes sont essentielles pour savoir, entre autres, si les mesures et les outils utilisés par le Conseil pour mettre en œuvre la loi et assurer une représentativité de francophones à l'écran et derrière l'écran sont un indicateur très probant et très parlant pour mesurer vos actions et les outils que vous utilisez. Donc, déjà ça.

6626 Et puisque, aussi, les radiodiffuseurs ont différentes façons de rapporter leurs données au CRTC, il serait très important que, lorsqu'on impose des dépenses en émissions canadiennes CLOSM francophones aux diffuseurs, qu'ils soient en ligne ou étrangers, canadiens, traditionnels, que lorsque les projets sont en coproduction, par exemple, avec des producteurs non CLOSM, que les données qui sont soumises au CRTC soient bien identifiées et soient réparties en fonction du pourcentage de droits d'exploitation que détient le producteur CLOSM sur le projet.

6627 Alors, si un projet est fait en coproduction avec le Québec et qu’un producteur franco‑canadien détient 60 pour cent des droits sur l’œuvre, le montant que le diffuseur peut et doit déclarer représente 60 pour cent de ses dépenses sur le projet et non l'ensemble des dépenses sur le projet. Ça, c'est excessivement important pour qu'on soit capables de vraiment mesurer l'impact encore, là, de vos mesures et voir si ça fait bouger l'aiguille du tout.

6628 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Parfait. Je vous remercie pour vos réponses. C’est tout. Merci.

6629 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Alors, on va continuer avec la conseillère Paquette. Merci.

6630 M^me Pilon : Merci.

6631 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bonjour, madame Pilon.

6632 M^me PILON : Bonjour

6633 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : J'avais une liste, moi aussi, mais vous avez répondu quand même à beaucoup, beaucoup de mes questions dans vos réponses. Alors, je ne les répéterai pas. Ce qui fait qu'il m'en reste deux simplement.

6634 Vous avez parlé des documentaires. J'aimerais approfondir un peu plus avec vous la question de la programmation jeunesse parce qu'elle a été identifiée par plusieurs intervenants comme étant une programmation dite à risque avec un problème à la fois… qui a été souligné en partie de financement, mais beaucoup d'aller rejoindre les jeunes là où ils sont sur les plateformes où ils se trouvent.

6635 Je me demandais, d'un point de vue de CLOSM… En fait, ma première question, c'est : est‑ce que vous estimez que les CLOSMs sont actuellement bien desservies en matière de programmation jeunesse à même la production qui se fait à l'extérieur du Québec en français? Et, deuxièmement, est‑ce que vous pouvez me parler de l'importance de cette programmation‑là pour les communautés de langue française et l'importance de desservir les jeunes avec leurs propres programmations?

6636 M^me PILON : Oui. Bien, c'est... La production jeunesse, elle est excessivement importante. Et chez les producteurs francophones en milieu minoritaire, on a aussi vécu cette baisse que le milieu vous a communiquée. En 2018‑2019, le contenu jeunesse était à son plus élevé, produit à l'extérieur du Québec en français, des projets CLOSM soutenus par le FMC. On était à 41 pour cent de l'investissement total. Et ça représentait environ en termes de nombre de projets, 37 pour cent des projets qui étaient faits dans la francophonie canadienne étaient pour les enfants, le secteur enfants, jeunesse. En 2024‑‘25, il est à son plus bas, c'est‑à‑dire 23 pour cent des projets sont faits pour les jeunes et les enfants. Et ça représente 22 pour cent de l'investissement.

6637 Donc, vous avez entendu toutes les raisons pour lesquelles la production jeunesse est en baisse. Difficile de monétiser ce contenu‑là. Et pourtant… Et même avec TFO qui a quand même un mandat très fort pour desservir les jeunes de la province de l'Ontario et qui est diffusé aussi dans d'autres provinces du pays, à lui seul et avec les moyens dont il dispose, n’a pas pu contrer cette baisse‑là. Il y a un désistement des diffuseurs privés d'offrir le contenu pour toutes les raisons qu’ils vous ont expliquées.

6638 Donc, c'est définitivement un contenu qu'il faut protéger. Et il faut le protéger parce que la jeunesse, en commençant par la petite enfance, est exposée à des contenus de langue anglaise dans nos communautés très, très, très, très tôt. Et les enfants ont dans leurs mains des tablettes et des téléphones intelligents à un très bas âge. Ils savent très bien se débrouiller pour aller chercher son contenu. Et, bien que les parents puissent être au… t’sais, derrière à proposer et suggérer et rendre accessibles les contenus qui existent, il n’en demeure pas moins que, la compétition, elle est énorme.

6639 Il ne faut pas oublier non plus que l'animation est un genre qui est très coûteux à produire et très difficile à produire en francophonie à l'extérieur du Québec, particulièrement parce que la plupart des studios d'animation se trouvent dans les grandes villes comme Toronto, Montréal. Et, si on veut travailler avec des collaborateurs qui ont une sensibilité pour le contenu de langue française et les référents culturels francophones, il faut se tourner vers le Québec.

6640 Et, comme vous savez, les crédits d'impôts provinciaux pour combler la structure financière des projets comptent pour un pourcentage quand même important de la structure financière. Et, du moment où est‑ce qu'on fait des dépenses qui vont au‑delà de la limite qui est permise par la province pour accéder à ces crédits d'impôt là, bien, on met à risque le financement du projet. Donc, on voit de plus en plus de projets où l'animation attire de plus en plus les jeunes. Et, chez nous, ça présente des défis importants.

6641 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis je comprends qu'en ce moment, c'est TFO, la principale plateforme de contenu jeunesse originale hors Québec. Est‑ce qu'il y a d'autres sources de contenu? Je parle de contenu produit à l'extérieur du Québec et diffusé sur des plateformes hors Québec en français.

6642 M^me PILON : Du contenu original?

6643 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Du contenu original jeunesse.

6644 M^me PILON : Bien, il y a Radio‑Canada qui en fait.

6645 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Ah oui.

6646 M^me PILON : Un peu.

6647 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Un peu, O.K.

6648 M^me PILON : TV5Unis a fait du contenu jeunesse, jeune adulte. Mais eux aussi trouvent difficile, très difficile de monétiser ce contenu et se posent des questions par rapport à l'avenir de ce contenu‑là sur la plateforme. Ce n'est pas par un manque de volonté, je ne crois pas, c'est vraiment des impératifs financiers qui mettent à risque ce contenu.

6649 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis est‑ce que vous avez des suggestions d'outils ou de mesures que le CRTC pourrait adopter, retenir, mettre en place pour supporter le genre spécifique jeunesse? Avez‑vous eu l'occasion de réfléchir à ça?

6650 M^me PILON : J'ai entendu quelques propositions sur la table. Encore là, il faudrait bien sûr réfléchir pour , assurer que ces exigences répondent bien à la réalité francophone en milieu minoritaire également. Mais c'est sûr que, chez nous, on a développé une certaine expertise. Comme je vous dis, le fait que cette production, ce type de contenu comptait pour 40 pour cent du volume de production dans la francophonie canadienne à une époque, c'est que c'est un genre pour lequel on a développé une certaine affinité, une certaine expertise.

6651 Et, mis à part tous les impératifs et les considérations économiques, pour la survie de la communauté francophone en milieu minoritaire, il est absolument essentiel et crucial qu'on offre à nos jeunes des contenus de langue française dès un bas âge qui leur ressemble, dans lequel ils peuvent se reconnaître et sur les plateformes sur lesquelles ils consomment.

6652 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Merci beaucoup. Je n'ai pas d'autres questions.

6653 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Merci pour la discussion. Alors, on aimerait vous laisser le mot final. Merci.

6654 M^me PILON : Merci. Merci. Donc, merci de votre écoute.

6655 En consultant les comparutions à l'audience publique à ce jour, ce qui ressort de manière particulièrement préoccupante est l'absence quasi totale de considération visant les communautés francophones en situation minoritaire dans les échanges. Ce constat devrait envoyer un signal fort et clair au Conseil quant à la nécessité de réglementer toutes les entreprises, qu'elles soient canadiennes, étrangères, traditionnelles ou en ligne, pour garantir que les objectifs de la loi, et particulièrement celles visant les CLOSMs, soient atteints.

6656 La quasi‑totalité des entreprises que vous avez accueillies jusqu'à présent demandent des allégements considérables, une souplesse presque illimitée allant jusqu'à l'exemption totale d'obligations de contribution en programmation canadienne et de laisser les forces du marché dicter les conditions dans lesquelles elles opèrent au Canada.

6657 En ce qui concerne la production de services, les incitatifs sont déjà en place. Les entreprises étrangères tournent leur contenu au Canada parce qu'ils y tirent des avantages financiers : crédits d'impôt, valeur du dollar canadien, expertise des équipes, entre autres. Les forces du marché pour ce secteur ne nécessitent pas une intervention réglementaire. Par contre, la programmation canadienne originale de langue française produite par les producteurs des CLOSM a besoin d'une intervention réglementaire sans quoi elle sera certainement vouée à disparaître.

6658 Je ne saurais trop insister sur l'importance du rôle de la production indépendante au sein d'un système de radiodiffusion qui contribue à la richesse de l'identité canadienne en plus de stimuler le développement économique, social et culturel des communautés. Elle ne peut pas être envisagée comme une option. La production indépendante joue un rôle crucial pour contrer les comportements anticoncurrentiels dans le système de radiodiffusion, garantir la diversité de la programmation sur tous les écrans et défendre notre souveraineté culturelle.

6659 Les CLOSMs incarnent une diversité d'expressions culturelles qui se reflètent dans la diversité de leurs créateurs, producteurs, services, les genres et les formats. Grâce à leurs contenus originaux, les producteurs franco‑canadiens transmettent une identité, une culture et une réalité distincte. Il est essentiel que le CRTC veille à ce que le système canadien de radiodiffusion favorise l’épanouissement et appuie le développement des CLOSMs comme le prévoit la loi.

6660 C'est pourquoi il nous apparaît essentiel pour la pérennité de la production indépendante francophone des CLOSMs que des outils tels que des dépenses en émissions canadiennes s'appliquent à l'ensemble des entreprises de radiodiffusion traditionnelles et en ligne, ou que des contributions soient orientées vers des fonds dédiés.

6661 De même, la détention des droits sur la propriété intellectuelle est un enjeu clé venant soutenir à la fois des impératifs économiques, culturels et garantissant que la valeur du contenu créé par les Canadiens reste avec les Canadiens.

6662 Je tiens à vous remercier pour le travail essentiel que vous accomplissez au service des CLOSMs et de la production indépendante. Merci.

6663 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup.

6664 THE SECRETARY: Merci. I will now ask Friends of Canadian Media to come to presentation table.

6665 THE CHAIRPERSON: Please introduce yourself when you are ready, and you may begin.

Présentation

6666 MS. BOLTMAN: Madam Chair, Commissioners and Commission staff, thank you for inviting us to appear today.

6667 My name is Marla Boltman. I am the Executive Director of Friends of Canadian Media and I will not be making a potato salad joke. With me today is our Board member, Kelly Lynne Ashton, and our external counsel, Peter Miller.

6668 Friends of Canadian Media is a non‑partisan, non‑profit citizens’ movement that stands up for Canadian voices in Canadian media. We speak for Canadians from across the country who proudly support a strong Canadian media sector and our cultural sovereignty.

6669 We have been in the cultural sovereignty business for just over 40 years now. Our job has been to remind Canadians that failure to protect our culture and our identity is a recipe for foreign domination. Now, with a little help from our unpredictable neighbours from the south, Canadians have heard that message loud and clear, which is why it’s so important that we remember that, despite its name, the core purpose of the Broadcasting Act is to create and disseminate programming for Canadians and Canadian audiences.

6670 It is fundamentally an act of nation‑building. It says so right there in section 3(1) of the Act:

“The Canadian broadcasting system is a public service essential to the maintenance and enhancement of national identity and cultural sovereignty.”

6671 To make that broadcasting system a reality, the Act gives us a long list of goals; 41 “shoulds” and 14 “shalls”, to be precise.

6672 You might have formed the impression from reading some of the intervenors’ written submissions that the Act gives the Commission a blank cheque to pursue flexibility in the name of unique business models. It does not.

6673 What the Act says about flexibility in section 5 is moored to the “shoulds” and “shalls” in section 3, which are about accomplishing Canadian programming goals through the use of Canadian creative human and other resources.

6674 As for these unique business models, last we checked, exploiting rights to attract and monetize audiences is a story almost as old as time. The foreign streamers may have changed the way audiences consume content, but they certainly have not changed the way it’s made or the fact that there are multiple inputs in the creative value chain that must be respected and rewarded.

6675 The pith and substance of the Broadcasting Act requires the Commission to boldly intervene in a market dominated by American content to ensure that Canadian stories have pride of place.

6676 Case in point: the Commission’s ruling on initial base contributions was bold, but more courage is required because the foreign streamers have given every indication that they do not like Canadian broadcasting regulation and, in the last three years, more particularly in the last 10 days, they have done very little to build up the goodwill and credibility that would enable the Commission to grant the blind trust to which they believe they are entitled.

6677 They gutted their DEI and training initiatives in response to the Commission’s requirement for initial contributions. They reject CPE and PNI spending requirements. They do not believe in a sharing economy that will allow our Canadian producers and creative talent to survive and thrive, and they have zero interest in contributions to media funds to support news, the backbone of our democracy, and they’ll see you in court, thank you very much.

6678 It’s always no, no no. Except for one thing. It’s yes to the hundreds of millions of Canadian taxpayer dollars that they use to support their foreign service production. Those they like just fine.

6679 MS. ASHTON: Our message today is that the Commission must keep in mind that market domination should not be prioritized above our domestic policy goals. So says the Act, so said the Policy Direction, and so say the Canadians we speak for.

6680 Your role, as we said at the beginning of our comments, is to be bold. But abolishing priority expenditures on programs of national interest is not the kind of boldness that Canadians need. It is a bad idea for any number of reasons, one of which is that we cannot trust the foreign streamers to fill a Commission‑created void in the programming that most defines us as Canadian.

6681 Trusting the streamers to pick up the primary load on Canadian PNI is like trusting our news production to foreign news networks. Canadians aren’t pining for a Fox News North and they aren’t asking for Americans to become the muse of Canadian stories. The big budget production values that the streamers could bring are not substitutes for the value of Canadian stories by Canadian voices that reflect and represent us all, including those from equity‑deserving communities and Indigenous peoples.

6682 The Online Streaming Act believes in Canada. It says so through its policy goals and the detailed regulatory powers bestowed upon the Commission to achieve them. That belief needs to come in the form of doubling down on Canadian talent and Canadian ownership and control.

6683 MS. BOLTMAN: Parliamentarians could not have predicted the times in which you would be asked to implement the Online Streaming Act, but here you are, the sentinel at the gate. So when you gather to make your determinations in this proceeding, please remember who has shown up and please consider that the vast majority of Canadian intervenors have approached the implementation process with a spirit of collaboration and cooperation. How very Canadian of us.

6684 We sincerely hope that the Commission’s decisions are infused with a similar spirit of community. In fact, our supporters at Friends of Canadian Media are counting on it as they look to you to ensure we have a truly Canadian broadcasting system for years to come.

6685 These microphones were not made for short people.

6686 THE CHAIRPERSON: Wonderful. Thank you so much to you, Friends of Canadian Media. Thank you for being here and for sharing your perspectives with us this afternoon.

6687 I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott to start with the questioning. Thank you.

6688 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: And let me assure you that, microphones aside, we heard you loud and clear.

6689 So maybe we’ll start with PNI because you’ve certainly got a strong view that PNI requirements ought to be maintained.

6690 My first question is whether the current genres captured within PNI are the right ones. Are there genres that should be added within the definition of PNI or what principles should we be taking into account when we determine what should be captured within PNI?

6691 MS. ASHTON: The core of PNI is drama and documentaries, and that is what we care the most about because that’s storytelling that reflects us to ourselves.

6692 If you’re asking about what is at risk programming, well, we do believe that news is at risk but should not be part of PNI. Don’t redefine PNI to include news. Treat news and support news separately.

6693 Should award shows be part of it? I don’t know that we’ve actually seen that have much of an impact. A number of other categories, kids, feature films, they’re already within the definition of drama. Kids is an audience rather than a program category.

6694 So the short answer is, I think as long as you focus on drama and documentaries, then PNI will do the job that we want it to do.

6695 MS. BOLTMAN: And we've been listening to these hearings, obviously, from the beginning and, obviously, children’s programming’s coming up a lot and it’s really important to our supporters. They are the future. So with them representing 20 percent of the population, we do think it’s vital to us as a country that Canadian children are exposed to Canadian stories and Canadian values from a young age and it is essential to our cultural sovereignty.

6696 So rather than maybe saying more focus on children’s PNI or direct CPEs to children’s, we ‑‑ at some point, someone made a proposal that children’s should be granted 9.1(1)(h) status. And while we’ve only briefly had, you know, small conversations about this because I think this just came up recently, I think that’s something that we could get behind.

6697 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you.

6698 And sometimes I find it helpful for my own thinking to invert the question. So if we didn’t have PNI, so there was no requirement to focus on long form drama and documentary, what would be the worst‑case scenario? Like what’s the type of content that you worry would be created in its stead?

6699 MS. ASHTON: We need the drama and documentaries to see ourselves, which is what the Broadcasting Act says is one of the major policy goals of the Canadian broadcasting system, of ‑‑ that the Commission is there to ensure.

6700 If there is no requirement, and you may have heard me already say this before, the broadcasters will not do it unless they are required to. So we need the PNI requirement across the board on broadcasters, on streamers to ensure that that programming is made.

6701 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yeah, but ‑‑ and sorry to harp on this, but if they ‑‑ I guess my question is, what would they make in its stead. So if we had a strong CPE requirement but no PNI, so they’re still required to make Canadian content but not necessarily documentary, like is the concern that it’s going to be all wrestling and game shows or what’s the concern?

6702 MS. ASHTON: Or ‑‑ yeah, it could be live sports. We’ve seen on Netflix and Amazon Prime, they’re now getting into live sports more. Cooking shows, reality. All those things are an important part of the system, but they’re not at risk. It costs a lot more to make drama. The costs of drama are going up all the time, especially when ‑‑ because we need to compete with American drama for the eyeballs. So we have to make it look almost as good or as good as American dramas. So that’s why it’s at risk programming.

6703 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you.

6704 So I did want to talk, then, about kind of the point system and the CPE requirements. And I’m interested in what you think about the idea of having kind of a scalable approach, so instead of this all‑or‑nothing situation, you either have enough points to qualify as Canadian or you don’t. If we had some gradient along the curve where if you get half the points, you get half the credit, if you get more points, you get more credit, would a scheme like that, one, produce the type of content that Canadians wants, and would that be a way of avoiding those weird situations where content that has some very prominent Canadians like a Canadian star nonetheless gets no credit towards Canadian programming expenditure?

6705 MS. BOLTMAN: There’s a lot in there. All right.

6706 So I'm going to tell that our position’s evolved a bit on this matter, and it ‑‑ as I tell you about that, I think I’m going to get to some of your answers. Then I’m happy for you to come back and tell me, you know, parse this out a bit.

6707 So times have changed since our written submission and conversations we’ve had have changed and we believe now that the writer, director and lead performer positions should all be occupied by Canadians. In this formula, in this way, you’re doubling down on the people who have the most significant influence on the Canadian‑ness of a program. And of course, producers must remain core to the definition of programming and, you know, if we get to ‑‑ we can have IP discussions, too. We’re open to the panoply of choices here.

6708 Everything I think you’ve heard in the last couple days, particularly from the WGC, Glenn Cockburn ‑‑ they were both two days ago, I believe ‑‑ and you know, the CMPA. I think they give you the context around who holds the most significant roles in the production.

6709 So as far as we’re concerned, as long as you keep the producer in the definition, you can almost just grey out that. And I actually think Glenn Cockburn said something similar. You could like toggle it off and you can take the writer, the director and the actors, the lead performers, right out of the equation, right out of the numerator, right out of the denominator. They become a fixture and then this flexibility that is sought by the MPA and the streamers and IATSE, have at it. You can put as many of those editor positions, wardrobe positions, hair and makeup positions, you can throw as many of them as you want in the mix. I realize that sounds complicated, but it’s not that complicated. They’d be the denominator and then I think you set a numerator. You have to have 60 percent Canadian.

6710 So if you’re going to have 10 of those key creative positions left, then six of them have to be filled by Canadians because I think to suggest, as they have, that these kinds of key creatives like the editors and the hair and makeup, I’m just ‑‑ I keep ‑‑ you know, just to keep it simple, carry the same weight or have the same weight, excuse me, and influence as the writers and the directors and the performers, well, in our world we call that fake news.

6711 So it’s ‑‑ to us, it’s just the streamers putting their thumb on the point scale in an attempt to have foreign service production masquerade as Canadian content.

6712 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yeah, I think your answer was actually more articulate than my question, so I don’t necessarily have any follow‑ups. That was very clear.

6713 Yeah. So turning, then, to your proposal for discoverability credit, so you propose that streamers should have expenditure requirements for Indigenous content and Canadian by and for equity‑seeking groups, and you suggested that contributions in the form of discoverability could be used to reduce those obligations.

6714 Is that ‑‑ could you ‑‑ and I’m especially interested in how we would identify and quantify and measure those types ‑‑ the value of those types of contributions.

6715 MR. MILLER: Thanks, Vice‑Chair Scott.

6716 First of all, we started from the premise that we really wanted to put discoverability on the hearing agenda because we didn’t see it quite as prominent and the Act, as you know, does empower you or ask you to make sure online undertakings engage in discoverability so we were trying to think of models that you might consider.

6717 And fundamental to our approach on discoverability is also our approach on CPE because, as you know, we’ve proposed an overall CPE requirement of 30 percent, which I think is amongst the highest that has been recommended, but we proposed that because when you do the math and you look at what broadcasters of all types contribute and you value their non‑monetary contributions, you come to a number that’s 30 percent or higher.

6718 So that’s our starting point that ‑‑ and we don’t think you can have a conversation about credits or anything else until you’ve decided on the level of CPE. But should you decide on a level of CPE, as we’ve suggested, we thought, well, how do you get the streamers to come to the table with tangible discoverability measures when they’re all different, all the streamers are different, they all have different approaches and it’s a very hard thing to regulate. You know, what is their incentive to come to the table with something?

6719 And so our thinking was, well, if we could establish some kind of baseline of discoverability measures that we expected everyone to do ‑‑ and I’m not saying that’s easy, but let’s say we could do that ‑‑ then you could say to streamers, “Well, if you come up to us at something over and above that and you provide a tangible value, we might consider reducing that 30 percent CPE”. That was the concept that we floated, you will.

6720 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Okay. Yeah. Can you speak a little bit about the benefit of, rather than setting two ‑‑ so rather than having a discoverability requirement and a CPE requirement, what’s the added value of kind of converting it to a common currency and using your discoverability to drive down your requirements on CPE?

6721 MR. MILLER: I think, again, our approach stemmed from how do you measure equity as between foreign undertakings and Canadian undertakings. And you know, we started down this path in your base contribution proceeding where, in the public notice, you outlined the financial contributions. It didn’t say anything about the non‑financial contributions.

6722 And so we, again, wanted to say, okay, we’ve got to value ‑‑ somehow, we’ve got to value these non‑financial contributions. In the BDU world, of course, they’re the carriage of discretionary services, they’re the carriage of conventional services and everything they contribute, and that’s how we valued it.

6723 So in the discoverability world, we simply were trying to strive to come up with something that, as I said, incents streamers to offer something tangible. And we do believe that most tangible commitments have a non‑monetary ‑‑ have a monetary value and you can assess it in some way.

6724 So I don’t know if I’m answering your question, but that’s, you know, how we went about it.

6725 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Yeah, that is helpful. And it's almost a similar style of question, but you’ve also been pretty strong in your call for support for local news, so I’m wondering if your ‑‑ if support for local news would come in the form of an additional regulatory burden or is that ‑‑ in emphasizing contributions towards local news, would we consequently be lowering our focus or lowering the requirements on other aspects in the system?

6726 MS. BOLTMAN: So we think that the first step that you took with local news with the 1.5 percent going to the ILNF was the right step, and so, obviously, a lot of things being discussed at this hearing are a lot of people raising is, is that enough or some people think that was plenty. You know, the answer is no, it’s not enough. We know we have a news crisis in this country, particularly in local news, and it behooves all of us to do something about it.

6727 And so if ‑‑ yes, we believe that more additional support is required, then what form should that take, which I think is going to answer your question.

6728 So first, we believe that the Commission needs to maintain currently locally reflective news CPEs to ensure that spending on local news remains constant relative to revenues.

6729 And second, we spoke to this briefly, while we’re not convinced that PNI obligations on private broadcasters should be reduced, if you were to do so, we would like to see sort of a one to one. So if they had a one ‑‑ you know, reduction on PNI, there was a commitment and a requirement that that money then went to news because we did hear a couple intervenors talk about how they’d like PNI to go down so that they can make more news, but there was no commitments on the table. So we’d like to see something like that.

6730 And then third, as we’ve stated in our market dynamics intervention, local news production on conventional TV broadcasters, you know, that meets minimum requirements should be deemed services of exceptional importance under section 11.1 of the Act and, therefore, they can be made eligible for direct streamer funding.

6731 So we are open to editorial flexibility on what the Commission deems locally reflective news, but we believe that a condition of any of new funding should be a physical presence in local markets, be it through local full‑time journalists, bureaus or news‑gathering offices. And based on what we heard from Rogers this morning, they talked about the administrative burden of having this local news, and we think if you ‑‑ I mean, Peter can speak to the history of how that came to be, but we actually were just talking about this over lunch. If you had to have boots on the ground as the requirement, it could possibly allieve (sic) the administrative burden that Rogers was referring to.

6732 And so finally, just to say, you know, the funding that we’re talking about, this additional funding, we do believe it should come from the streamers. The growth of foreign online undertakings has directly contributed to declines in broadcaster revenues and their ability to support local news. And so we think that requiring foreign online undertakings to support local news is very similar to something like the CRTC requiring BDUs who have no ‑‑ you know, some don’t have any vested interest in local news, but they still have to support it through the ILF.

6733 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much.

6734 Madam Chair, I’ll stop there.

6735 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

6736 We will go to Vice‑Chair Théberge.

6737 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for being here.

6738 I’m going to bring you to another part of your submission, AI. And you have suggested that the Commission should tackle the issue head on and issue guardrails.

6739 This is an issue that came up in other interventions. Some made the distinction between generative AI and I think the view was probably more unanimous on this front, but others have also raised the role that AI assisted tools play, including in the creative process, and that we should still find a way to put guardrails.

6740 There was also a suggestion made around AI labelling to make sure out of a transparency intent Canadians knew what they were consuming.

6741 So I would be interested in knowing what specific guardrails you had in mind. Yeah, that’s my question.

6742 MS. BOLTMAN: I think your question may be longer than my answer, so I apologize in advance.

6743 But we know that this is obviously a very challenging subject matter and, obviously, I encourage my co‑panelists if they want to jump in at any point. But the Cancon certification ‑‑ sorry, the certification system that we’ve been talking about is about individual creators, the people who create the content. And so we need guidelines to protect the people who create the content.

6744 And so you know, you’ve heard it before. I’m just going to say it again. From what we understand the industry is using AI as a tool to help them, they are ‑‑ they’re not ‑‑ it’s not doing their jobs for them and it shouldn’t be replacing them in their jobs. And so we are talking about creative human inputs as part of this whole process and we just think guidelines need to exist to protect those creative human inputs.

6745 MS. ASHTON: And another thing I would like to add is that if the key creative points are clearly limited to individuals, that’s one of those guardrails, but what we’ve been learning through ‑‑ and you heard from the Writers Guild that they had put all that effort in collective bargaining to create these guidelines where AI generated material is source material and it has not yet been used once.

6746 So while we hear in the media about AI generated content, we’re not there yet. People are using it as a tool.

6747 I attended a DGC workshop where they went through how AI tools can be used in pre‑production, in development, as a way of communicating early ideas, being able to show a look and feel, to be able to present it to the director to say, hey, this is what we’re thinking of doing, what do you think. And what they said at the end of the workshop really stuck with me. It's like AI is not going to take your job, but someone who knows how to use AI may take your job.

6748 So I think that’s where we are.

6749 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Yeah, I think one of the challenges that we face as we’re trying to create a system that is as future proof as possible and so trying to envision future uses of AI. And so when you suggest that we consider guardrails, the first question that came to mind was what kind of guardrails are we talking about. Is it adding some specificity to the definition itself to specify such as ‑‑ you recommended, perhaps, that we’re talking about individuals. What about the gens that are using actively AI as part of their creative process? Should they be penalized? Should it be reflected some way?

6750 And of course, I go back to my last question around labelling, AI labelling, and whether this is something that, you know, we should consider, that you’ve considered. It’s okay if you haven’t, but I’m just trying to tease out a little bit your position.

6751 MS. ASHTON: In some ways, the way ‑‑ what we don’t want is to have people not using these tools when they can actually make the creative process easier. It’s like using Final Draft to write your script or spellcheck on Word. You don’t label that in the final product. This is a tool that’s being used to help you get to that final product.

6752 That being said, I can imagine there ‑‑ a future where if it’s actually creating the content and replacing people, that will need to be identified.

6753 MR. MILLER: If I may, Madam Vice‑Chair, as a lawyer I don’t think you’re going to be able to come up with anything that’s future proofed at this stage. I was interested to hear Colette Watson from Rogers talk about how scary AI is, and yet our Prime Minister made it a very key part of his, you know, guidelines to Ministers.

6754 So we’re at this stage where I don’t think we even really know the pros and the cons.

6755 I think we said earlier ‑‑ Kelly Lynne said earlier that it cannot replace key creative positions, and I think you alluded to something else. I think there has to be disclosure.

6756 And I think Rogers talked about the fact that they do not use AI for any of their newscasts, and I think that would ‑‑ you’d want to get some more input on that, but that is an area you might want to delve into, that while AI could be used for source material for news, it cannot be used for reporting.

6757 But all of these things are in flux, in my view.

6758 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

6759 Thank you very much. That’s all, Madam Chair.

6760 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you so much.

6761 So at this point, we would like to turn things back over to you for concluding remarks.

6762 MS. BOLTMAN: I'd like to reiterate what we said earlier, that this proceeding is about how to best create Canadian programming for Canadian audiences, how to keep the Canadian in the Canadian broadcasting system. It's not about placating stakeholders who view Canadian content as a burden to overcome.

6763 The whole Act was built on a promise by the Canadian government that foreign streamers who benefit from the system would need to contribute to it. Obviously, the devil is in the details. You now know that better than anyone at this point at 2:36 p.m. on your second Friday afternoon. But if you get the details right, then foreign streamer participation in our broadcasting system will provide a meaningful lift for Canadian programming, significant opportunities for Canadian talent, and a much‑needed solution to help solve our local news crisis.

6764 Thank you very much.

6765 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for being here with us.

6766 THE SECRETARY: Thank you.

6767 We will take a 10‑minute break and be back at 2:50.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 14 h 36

‑‑‑ Reprise à 14 h 47

6768 LA SECRÉTAIRE : Nous allons maintenant entendre la présentation de l'Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec, Guilde des musiciens et musiciennes du Québec, Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, Union des artistes. S'il vous plaît vous présenter et présenter vos collègues. Et vous pouvez débuter.

Présentation

6769 M^me KONTOYANNI : Bonjour, Madame la Présidente et membres et membres du comité d’audition.

6770 Je m’appelle Tania Kontoyanni. Je suis la présidente de l’Union des artistes. Je suis accompagnée aujourd’hui par Gabriel Pelletier, président de l’Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec, l’ARRQ, et de Luc Thériault, vice‑président de la Société des auteurs et autrices de radio, télévision et cinéma, la SARTEC. Et sont avec nous également nos directeurs et directrices généraux, Alexandre Curzi, directeur général de l’UDA, Mylène Cyr, directrice générale de l’ARRQ, et Laurent Dubois, directeur général de la SARTEC.

6771 Nous travaillons présentement dans un écosystème fragile et en crise. La production indépendante au Québec continue à décroître de façon importante en valeur, en nombre de projets, en volume total d’emplois et en postes de création clés. Sans l’appui du CRTC, nous risquons d’être marginalisés dans notre propre pays. Or, ce n’est pas en abaissant les critères d’accréditation d’une émission canadienne et en abandonnant le concept d’une émission d’intérêt national, les ÉIN, que le Conseil réussira à contribuer à l’avancement de l’expression artistique et culturelle canadienne, particulièrement en français.

6772 Plus précisément, le système de certification d’une émission canadienne exigeant six points sur dix fonctionne et devrait être retenu. Même s’il a besoin de révision et de renforcement comme nous l’avons décrit dans notre intervention du 20 janvier dernier, le système basé sur un maximum de 10 points est le plus susceptible de soutenir et de promouvoir les histoires canadiennes grâce à une programmation audiovisuelle qui fait appel à la créativité canadienne, y compris du contenu de langue française et autochtone. De fait, comme proposé par l’AQPM, par la CMPA, par Radio‑Canada/CBC et par nous, le Conseil devrait renforcer son approche actuelle en exigeant que les postes créatifs clés de réalisateur, de scénariste et d’interprète principal soient occupés par des Canadiens pour que la production soit admissible à la certification.

6773 À l’heure actuelle, la production en français des studios américains et des géants du web est quasiment inexistante. Diluer ou affaiblir la définition d’une émission canadienne, comme le propose le CRTC, en ajoutant des points pour des postes avec peu de contrôle créatif ou de visibilité afin d’arriver à un système d’accréditation de 15 points, ne changera pas cette situation. Dans ce contexte, des mesures incitatives ne fonctionneront pas. Les studios américains et les géants du web ne produiront pas en français à moins que le Conseil impose des obligations de dépenses précises en émissions canadiennes (DEC) et de dépenses sur les ÉIN.

6774 Luc.

6775 M. THÉRIAULT : Nous ne sommes pas non plus d’accord avec la nouvelle approche proposée par le Conseil pour reconnaître les postes créatifs clés partagés par plusieurs personnes ‑‑ c’est‑à‑dire un minimum de 80 pour cent au lieu de 100 pour cent de Canadiens. Pour les postes clés occupés par plus d’une personne, la production ne devrait obtenir un point que si toutes les personnes sont canadiennes, comme c’est le cas aujourd’hui.

6776 En règle générale, le Conseil devrait cesser d’utiliser les crédits de temps comme mesure incitative pour rendre la programmation canadienne disponible ‑‑ sauf dans le cas du doublage des productions au Canada par des Canadiens. La question du doublage concerne les émissions de langue française beaucoup plus que celles de langue anglaise, étant donné l’énorme volume d’émissions provenant des États‑Unis et diffusées en version doublée au Canada. Maintenir la mesure actuelle n’aurait aucune incidence sur toute entreprise, dont celles en ligne, qui n’a pas de réglementation basée sur le temps.

6777 En règle générale, la chaîne de titres reliée à une production accréditée devrait être détenue par un ou des Canadiens, comme c’est le cas pour une certification par le BCPAC. Cela dit, à l’heure actuelle, la « coentreprise » et la coproduction officielle offrent de la souplesse aux producteurs canadiens qui souhaitent collaborer avec des producteurs étrangers provenant des États‑Unis ou d’ailleurs dans le monde, en partageant les responsabilités de prise de décisions créatives et financières. Toutefois, si le CRTC décidait de retenir le concept d’une coentreprise, il faudrait à tout le moins que le réalisateur, le scénariste et l’une des deux personnes occupant le premier et le deuxième rôle principal soient canadiens. De plus, afin d’empêcher un recours excessif à la production canadienne par coentreprise, il faudrait stipuler que les coentreprises ne pourraient contribuer à plus que d’un tiers des obligations de DEC ou de dépenses sur les ÉIN des entreprises de programmation ou en ligne.

6778 En ce qui concerne l’intelligence artificielle, il y a assurément des manières pour les créateurs de l’utiliser comme outil de travail dans la production télévisuelle canadienne. À l’heure actuelle, la création de contenu audiovisuel par l’intelligence artificielle ne peut se faire sans l’utilisation illégale de contenu protégé par le droit d’auteur. Tout développement de l’intelligence artificielle devrait se faire en respectant les trois principes suivants regroupés sous l’acronyme A.R.T. : autorisation, rétribution et transparence. Nous sommes favorables à l’utilisation de l’intelligence artificielle à condition qu’elle se fasse dans le respect, la négociation et le bénéfice des ayants droit et du public.

6779 Gabriel.

6780 M. PELLETIER : Les exigences globales en matière de DEC pour les entreprises en ligne étrangères devraient être similaires à celles des entreprises de radiodiffusion autorisées par licence. En ce qui concerne des dépenses en émissions d’intérêt national, presque toutes les associations de créateurs et de producteurs canadiens appuient les exigences actuelles, qui demeurent cruciales pour la télévision francophone et anglophone. Si elle était mise en œuvre, l’approche préliminaire du CRTC proposant de délaisser les ÉIN mènerait à l’abandon d’émissions comme les dramatiques et les documentaires d’auteur canadiens par tous les services télévisuels du secteur privé, dont les services généralistes à grand public, au profit d’émissions moins coûteuses comme les télé‑réalités, les talk‑shows ou les émissions de style de vie. Retenir les exigences de dépenses en ÉIN pour les entreprises de programmation traditionnelles et les entreprises en ligne ne devrait pas incommoder les géants du web, car ces derniers présentent déjà très majoritairement des dramatiques dans leurs catalogues.

6781 Madame la Présidente et membres du comité d’audition, nous représentons plus de 16 000 scénaristes, réalisateurs, actrices, chanteurs, musiciennes, danseurs, doubleurs et animatrices qui sont au cœur de la production d’émissions francophones pour la radiodiffusion au Québec et au Canada. Nous souhaitons que l’application de la nouvelle Loi sur la radiodiffusion contribue à la vitalité et à la sauvegarde de notre culture, et qu’elle encourage la création, la production et la diffusion d’émissions originales de langue française. Alors que les studios hollywoodiens et les géants du web s’opposent à la plupart des nouveaux éléments de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion et souhaitent que le concept d’une émission canadienne soit redéfini pour rendre les nouveaux éléments de la loi nuls et non avenus, nous appuyons cette loi fermement. Contrairement aux entreprises américaines, l’identité nationale du Canada et sa souveraineté culturelle nous interpellent directement.

6782 Enfin, nous saluons le souhait du CRTC de réviser la définition d’une émission canadienne et de créer un cadre réglementaire pour les dépenses sur les émissions canadiennes par les entreprises de programmation et les entreprises en ligne. En parallèle, tout en modernisant le régime actuel, il faut éviter de le faire en assouplissant et en affaiblissant l’apport culturel canadien pour renforcer celui des studios et des entreprises en ligne américains. Il y a beaucoup d’éléments dans la définition courante d’une émission canadienne et dans l’actuel cadre réglementaire concernant les DEC et les ÉIN qui fonctionnent bien. Ces éléments méritent d’être retenus dans tout nouveau régime modernisé couvrant les entreprises en ligne. Nous sommes préoccupés par la survie de notre souveraineté culturelle. Dans le contexte actuel, nous voulons vous rappeler que les décisions que vous prendrez seront garantes de la pérennité de la télévision québécoise.

6783 Cela complète notre présentation. Et nous vous remercions de votre attention. Nous sommes prêts à répondre à vos questions.

6784 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup et on a vraiment hâte à notre discussion. Alors, on va commencer les questions avec la conseillère Paquette. Merci beaucoup.

6785 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Merci Beaucoup pour votre participation en ce vendredi après‑midi.

6786 M. PELLETIER : Oui.

6787 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Quand même. Ça ne demeurera pas moins intéressant, je pense. Je voudrais commencer par le système de points comme tel. Je vous ai entendu dire en ouverture que le système fonctionne en ce moment. On a entendu d'autres intervenants comme l’AQPM, comme Québecor mercredi, qui ont dit un peu la même chose. Ils disent, la définition fonctionne.

6788 Dans votre intervention, vous proposez quand même de nouveaux modèles avec un nouveau système de points. Si vous aviez le choix entre garder le système de points tel qu'il est en ce moment ou les modèles que vous proposez, qu'est‑ce que vous aimeriez mieux?

6789 M. PELLETIER : C'est toujours dangereux de s'avancer, d'ouvrir des portes. En fait, nous, on croit qu'il faut le renforcer d'abord en exigeant que scénariste, réalisateur et interprète principal soient obligatoirement canadiens. Là‑dessus, on s'appuie sur le décret de novembre 2023 qui voulait encourager le CRTC à mettre en valeur les véritables rôles clés qui ont, dans le fond, le plus de contrôle créatif et de visibilité. Pour nous, c'est ça qui va assurer l'identité canadienne puis l'expression culturelle et artistique.

6790 Donc, on pense que… Bien, ça fonctionne en ce moment, mais ça doit être renforcé. On a entendu d'ailleurs les Amis de la radiodiffusion qui disaient la même chose au niveau de le renforcer pour ces catégories‑là, ces rôles clés là. Et d'autre part aussi, on croit à la propriété intellectuelle canadienne.

6791 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Donc, je comprends que le système que vous proposez est conditionnel au fait que les postes clés soient obligatoires, comme…

6792 M. PELLETIER : Tout à fait.

6793 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : O.K. Je comprends.

6794 M. PELLETIER : Et c'est un système aussi qui est utilisé de pointage sur 10 par d'autres agences comme le BCPAC…

6795 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Oui

6796 M. PELLETIER : …qui a le bonheur d'être simple aussi. Et ce n'est pas pour diminuer le rôle des artisans, d’autres artisans sur une production, mais c'est vraiment, pour nous, ce qui passe au niveau de l'identité, de l'expression de la culture canadienne.

6797 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Et qu'est‑ce que vous répondez à ceux qui poussent en disant que ça prend une définition flexible pour permettre les partenariats internationaux?

6798 M. PELLETIER : Bien, c'est là qu'on doit protéger, dans le fond, notre souveraineté culturelle. Rendre ça flexible, c'est d'affaiblir notre identité, l'expression de nos valeurs. Quand on donne des pointages sur des rôles qui sont moins déterminants au niveau du contrôle créatif, bien, à ce moment‑là, c'est l'expression de la canadienneté de nos productions qui est aussi affaiblie.

6799 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis il y a d'autres intervenants qui proposent d'ajouter des critères de diversité. Est‑ce que votre position est la même? Est‑ce qu'il faudrait éviter d'ajouter des critères de diversité afin encore une fois de ne pas diluer les rôles clés essentiels?

6800 M. PELLETIER : Je pense qu'il y a des façons d'encourager la diversité, là, et pas nécessairement dans la définition de contenu canadien. Je veux dire, la diversité présente par la citoyenneté des gens qui, donc, emportent des points dans la définition, ces gens‑là peuvent être membres de la diversité. Ils peuvent être des autochtones. Donc, c'est déjà là... Mais il y a d'autres façons d'encourager la diversité, je pense, que de complexifier le système de pointage.

6801 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Donc, vous dites, ce n'est pas au niveau de la définition et peut‑être avec d'autres outils…

6802 M. PELLETIER : Avec d'autres outils, oui, qui peuvent être des outils incitatifs ou…

6803 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Vous mentionnez dans votre intervention que les studios et les géants du Web américains sont très rébarbatifs au contenu canadien et vous dites surtout en français. Le « surtout en français » m'intéresse tout particulièrement. Je me demandais si vous pouviez nous en dire davantage à ce sujet. Est‑ce qu'il existe effectivement des défis spécifiques liés à la production de contenu francophone sur les plateformes numériques?

6804 M. PELLETIER : Bien, par simple constatation, je pense qu'on peut compter pratiquement sur les doigts d'une main les productions en français que… la production originale en français qu'ont fait les plateformes jusqu'à maintenant. Alors, c'est vraiment minuscule. J'ai l'impression que, pour eux, le marché n'est pas assez important. Et c'est peut‑être une des difficultés qu'on a à les voir s'investir en contenu canadien francophone. Donc, ce qu'on espère, c'est qu'il y ait des obligations. On pense que, pour la production francophone, ce qui fonctionne, ce sont des obligations et pas des incitatifs, par exemple.

6805 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Donc, il devrait y avoir des obligations, des requis de production francophone.

6806 M. PELLETIER : Oui.

6807 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Avez‑vous des idées de comment soutenir mieux, à travers un nouveau cadre réglementaire, avez‑vous des suggestions? Et j'irais même plus loin. Est‑ce que ça demanderait une approche différente pour la production francophone pouvant aller jusqu'à peut‑être une définition différente et des requis différents? À quel niveau et est‑ce que ça devrait être presque un cadre différent pour soutenir la production francophone?

6808 M. PELLETIER : La production francophone a besoin d'être mieux soutenue financièrement. Ça a été exprimé par l'AQPM, par exemple. Le financement est différent dans les deux marchés, c’est‑à‑dire qu'il y a beaucoup plus d'investissement international de prévente dans le financement des productions anglophones.

6809 Est‑ce que le CRTC peut aller influencer ça? Je n'en suis pas… de façon réglementaire, je n'en suis pas certain. On fait des recommandations auprès du gouvernement pour que le FMC distribue l'argent différemment pour compenser ce manque de moyens. On l'a vu, les budgets en dramatique sont une fraction de ce qu’ils sont chez nos collègues anglophones. Mais je ne pense pas que c'est au niveau de la définition que ça va se jouer.

6810 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Comme telle? O.K. Très bien. Maintenant, je vous amènerai sur le terrain des émissions d'intérêt national. Donc, vous vous positionnez en faveur du maintien de cette notion. À supposer qu'on oublie pour l'instant, là, et je ne dis pas que ça va être le cas, mais qu'on oublie pour l'instant, que le Conseil décide de ne pas conserver cette notion, est‑ce que certains contenus… Tiens, on repart à 0. Est‑ce que certains contenus devraient être considérés comme prioritaires ou à risque ou être spécialement soutenus par notre, notre écosystème? Et si oui, lesquels? Et selon quels critères?

6811 M. PELLETIER : Bien, ils sont déjà à risque et puis mes collègues vont pouvoir... Je veux dire, c’est… les gens qui sont déjà dans les émissions d'intérêt national sont à risque. On le constate tous les jours. Chacune de nos associations voit les productions, par exemple, les dramatiques diminuer. Les revenus de nos membres diminuent. On a vu une réduction de la production indépendante au Québec de 18 pour cent par rapport à l'année précédente.

6812 On voit qu’il y a moins de dramatiques. Il y a moins de nombre d'épisodes dans chacune des dramatiques. Donc, les dramatiques sont en danger. On a de la difficulté en français à produire du documentaire, énormément de difficultés. C'est une case horaire qui est de plus en plus difficile à trouver chez les diffuseurs.

6813 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis est‑ce que ce sont les mêmes types d'émissions d'après vous qui demeurent à risque?

6814 M. PELLETIER : C'est les mêmes types d'émissions. Et puis j'ai entendu chez d'autres intervenants les émissions jeunesse.

6815 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Jeunesse.

6816 M. PELLETIER : C'est un fait. Nous, on constate statistiquement que, plus les auditoires sont jeunes, moins ils écoutent des émissions en français et nos productions locales. Donc, il faut leur offrir de ces émissions. Et donc, ça, c'est une catégorie, effectivement, qui est à protéger, qui fait partie des émissions d'intérêt national. Pour ce qui est, par exemple, des… si c'est une émission jeunesse dramatique.

6817 Par contre, il y a des émissions qui sont des magazines jeunesse qui sont pas parties des ÉIN, alors, qui ne sont pas protégées en tant que telles, en tant qu'émissions jeunesse. Mais chacune de ces catégories est en danger. La même chose pour les variétés ou les… du côté francophone, la musique a de la difficulté puis les émissions, par exemple, musicales, aident à promouvoir la musique francophone.

6818 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis vous venez de faire une distinction. Vous dites « du côté francophone ». Est‑ce qu'il y a des genres… est‑ce qu'il y a des genres d'émissions qui sont plus à risque dans un marché par rapport à l'autre? Je vous ramène encore sur le terrain des différences entre le marché francophone et anglophone.

6819 M. PELLETIER : Bien, je dirais, les dramatiques en ce moment sont vraiment en danger parce que c'est les plus coûteuses. Ce sont toutes des catégories coûteuses dans les émissions d’intérêt national, mais je dirais que les dramatiques sont les plus coûteuses. C'est en même temps celles qui sont le plus identitaires et donc qu'il faut absolument protéger. C'est là que s'expriment toute la diversité puis l'expression de notre culture.

6820 Je rappelle que la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, c'est une loi culturelle d'abord et avant tout et que, donc, elle doit encourager l'expression artistique. Et il est dramatique en ce moment, on peut en témoigner, je suis certain que ma collègue de l'Union des artistes a des exemples de ses membres qui… Des pertes de revenus, je ne sais pas si tu veux en dire un mot, Tania.

6821 M^me KONTOYANNI : Bien, tout à fait parce que, en ce qui concerne les émissions d'intérêt national, comme le disait mon collègue, elles sont les plus coûteuses. C'est aussi celles qui, dans le contexte économique actuel, avec l'explosion des coûts de production, mettent le plus de pression sur les créateurs, que ce soient des réalisateurs, des scénaristes ou des interprètes d'ailleurs, de même que tous les artisans qui nous accompagnent dans la production d'émissions.

6822 Et, en ce moment, ce qu'on constate, c'est que les conditions de travail sont de plus en plus difficiles. On se compare très désavantageusement avec la production anglophone au Canada en ce qui a trait à nos conditions de travail parce que nos budgets par épisode, par exemple, d'une dramatique, sont de trois à quatre fois moindres qu'un épisode anglophone au Canada. Donc, il y a une pression supplémentaire.

6823 Et si je peux me permettre d'ajouter, pour les émissions enfance, jeunesse, que c’est crucial en ce moment, la diminution drastique non seulement des conditions de travail, mais de l'existence de ces émissions‑là éloigne de plus en plus notre jeunesse de notre contenu. Et, en ce moment, bien, c'est ça, ils sont en train d'être pénétrés par une culture étrangère.

6824 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. On a eu la CMPA juste un peu avant vous, qui propose de remplacer les obligations d’EIN par des dépenses en productions indépendantes ciblées. Qu'est‑ce que vous pensez de cette proposition? Avez‑vous une opinion?

6825 M. PELLETIER : Je pense que c'est trop tôt pour qu’on puisse se prononcer. Ça a été… ça a été dit aujourd’hui, je pense.

6826 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : C’est trop frais. Trop frais.

6827 M. PELLETIER : Alors, on n'a pas eu le temps de se faire une tête là‑dessus. Alors, je pense qu'on peut vous revenir là‑dessus.

6828 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Il me reste une question avant de passer la parole à mes collègues. J'aimerais avoir tout particulièrement votre opinion, monsieur Pelletier, sur une proposition qui… Bien, en fait, c'est dans votre intervention, la proposition selon laquelle 75 pour cent de la musique d'une production doive être canadienne. Je me demandais, est‑ce qu'il n’y a pas un danger qu’il y ait un impact sur la liberté de création, entre autres des réalisateurs?

6829 M. PELLETIER : Non. Je pense qu’on est tous solidaires en tant qu'artistes. On est solidaires. Et d'ailleurs, notre mémoire a été déposé en collaboration avec la Guilde des musiciens. Et donc, je pense que tout doit participer à l'expression canadienne et ça inclut la musique. La musique, c'est universel. Il y a de nos collègues qui peuvent être tentés… de mes collègues qui peuvent être tentés d'utiliser de la musique américaine étant donné sa popularité. Mais, ceux‑là, je ne serais pas d'accord avec elles et eux. Je pense que tout dans une production canadienne, quand on parle de contenu canadien, c'est l'ensemble des éléments artistiques et culturels qui y sont présents. Alors, je pense que d'avoir cette exigence‑là, il y a quand même un 25 pour cent, là...

6830 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Vous êtes conscient, par exemple… Ma collègue mentionnait l'exemple du film C.R.A.Z.Y., qui retrace des époques à travers la musique qui était populaire. Vous êtes conscient qu'un film comme C.R.A.Z.Y. ne se qualifierait pas si on appliquait ce... Puis j'ai un autre exemple. Pas plus tard que voilà trois semaines, j'écoutais 1995 de Ricardo…

6831 M. PELLETIER : Oui.

6832 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : …Trogi, qui se passe au Caire avec de la musique arabe. Ça non plus, ça ferait en sorte que le film ne se qualifierait…

6833 M. PELLETIER : Bien, c’est‑à‑dire qu’il y a une proportion qui serait ouverte, c'est‑à‑dire qu'on parle de 75 pour cent et non de 100 pour cent. Mais, effectivement, l'exemple que vous prenez avec C.R.A.Z.Y., effectivement, ça ne rencontrerait pas ces exigences‑là. Mais je pense qu'il y a des œuvres canadiennes qui pourraient jouer un rôle.

6834 Je pense que Jean‑Marc, le regretté Jean‑Marc que je connaissais bien, ce qu'il voulait exprimer dans le fond, c'est une époque et des chansons qui étaient emblématiques de cette époque‑là. Et je pense qu'en fouillant un peu avec une exigence… Parce qu'on en a beaucoup en tant que réalisateurs, des exigences, dont une exigence budgétaire de rencontrer nos horaires, et cætera. On fonctionne dans des cadres, on est habitués à fonctionner dans des cadres. Et je pense que Jean‑Marc peut‑être aurait… Puis je ne peux pas parler pour lui.

6835 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Il ne pourra pas défendre, malheureusement…

6836 M. PELLETIER : Non, c'est ça, il ne pourra pas s'en défendre. Mais il aurait pu trouver des chansons emblématiques, des chansons canadiennes ou québécoises qui auraient été emblématiques de cette époque‑là.

6837 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien, merci. Je n'ai pas d'autres questions.

6838 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci. Alors, on va continuer avec la vice‑présidente.

6839 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci beaucoup. Merci pour votre participation. J'ai une pensée pour Jean‑Marc Vallée. Effectivement, j'encourage mes collègues à voir le film, revoir le film C.R.A.Z.Y., qui est un…

6840 M. PELLETIER : Oui

6841 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …qui est un joyau. Je suis grande fan de Bowie aussi. Alors, ça aide.

6842 M. PELLETIER : Oui, moi aussi

6843 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Bon, bien, on se parlera. Il n’est pas canadien, malheureusement.

6844 Je veux revenir sur la question de la définition. Premièrement, merci pour votre présentation. On vous a bien entendus sur l'importance de maintenir certains postes obligatoires dans la définition : scénariste, réalisateur, interprète. Je pense que, votre postulat, c'est que c'est là que réside le contrôle créatif.

6845 Mais en même temps, on est amenés à considérer des demandes de flexibilité dans la définition. Et, parmi les modèles qui nous ont été proposés, et mon collègue, le vice‑président Scott l'a mentionné un peu plus tôt aujourd'hui, c’est cette idée d'un modèle gradué ou en deux étapes d'une certaine façon, c’est‑à‑dire un modèle de définition qui comprend à la fois des points pour des postes obligatoires avec des points bonis pour une série de critères.

6846 On a parlé de la diversité. On nous a fait remarquer que, au Royaume‑Uni, effectivement, dans leur grille, il y a un point pour la diversité. Télé‑Québec nous a parlé d'un point pour la langue de tournage, qui pourrait être intégré peut‑être de façon non obligatoire dans une définition en deux temps.

6847 Est‑ce que c'est une piste qui, de votre point de vue, serait intéressante à explorer, c’est‑à‑dire d'avoir un modèle avec un socle obligatoire, mais qui permet certaines adaptations plutôt qu'un modèle « tout ou rien »?

6848 M. PELLETIER : Je pense… parce qu’on ne s'est pas concertés, je vais répondre pour ma part. Si c'est un modèle qui va au‑delà de ce qu'on met de l'avant, c’est‑à‑dire, à partir de six points sur dix, si le CRTC veut considérer des mesures incitatives, c'est‑à‑dire qu'on ait les six points sur dix et les rôles clés qu'on met de l'avant, c’est‑à‑dire, par exemple, les exigences du FMC sont de 10 points sur 10. Et à ce moment‑là, il peut y avoir des incitatifs que vous pourriez rajouter. Mais je pense qu'on s'entend tous pour dire qu'un minimum de six points sur dix est nécessaire ainsi que ces rôles clés qu'on met de l’avant.

6849 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci pour votre réponse. Vous avez des collègues aussi qui ont évoqué la possibilité d'ajouter une obligation de résidence pour les postes obligatoires, c’est‑à‑dire qu'il faudrait nécessairement travailler et payer des impôts au Canada pour être reconnu comme étant un Canadien. Donc, le passeport ne serait pas suffisant. L'argument qu’ils nous ont mis, qu'ils ont fait valoir, c'est que c'est une façon de garder les gens chez nous d'une certaine façon. C'est peut‑être un peu plus applicable du côté anglophone, où les talents sont attirés par les chants des sirènes hollywoodiennes.

6850 M. PELLETIER : Oui, pour avoir habité trois ans à Los Angeles, j'en ai connu plusieurs, mais...

6851 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Alors, je serais‑curieuse de savoir si c'est quelque chose qui a un écho chez vous.

6852 M. PELLETIER : Bien, il y a déjà des exigences au niveau provincial pour la subvention des exigences de résidence. Alors, pour moi, c'est... Oui, c'est logique que ce soient des Canadiens qui paient leurs taxes au Canada. Le danger, je pense, c'est qu’il y ait des... le centre décisionnel soit à l'étranger. Et c'est ça le danger.

6853 Je ramène toujours ça, dans le fond, au contrôle créatif, qu’il soit chez nous, avec des producteurs et des talents de chez nous. Et quand on habite ailleurs, quand on est près d'un centre décisionnel étranger, bien, à ce moment‑là peut‑être qu'on reflète moins bien la réalité canadienne.

6854 M^me KONTOYANNI : Si je peux me permettre d'ajouter que c'est quand même quelque chose qui se pose moins de notre côté et que, l'important, c'est que le réalisateur ou le maître d'œuvre, les gens qui ont un vrai contrôle sur l'histoire qu'on raconte se définissent eux‑mêmes comme des Canadiens francophones.

6855 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Mais est‑ce que ça veut nécessairement dire qu'ils habitent ici?

6856 M^me KONTOYANNI : Ça ne veut pas nécessairement dire qu'ils habitent ici. Si Denis Villeneuve fait tout à coup un film ou Jean‑Marc, justement, qui habitait à Los Angeles aussi, s'ils faisaient un film… Il y a des personnes comme ça issues du Canada francophone qui portent toujours en eux cette espèce de vision québécoise.

6857 M. PELLETIER : Jean‑Marc et Denis habitent… Jean‑Marc habitait quand même au Canada, là, même s’il était souvent rendu là‑bas, mais il faisait des productions américaines.

6858 M^me KONTOYANNI : Exact.

6859 M. PELLETIER : Et Denis habite… a quand même sa résidence ici.

6860 M^me KONTOYANNI : Donc, ça se pose moins dans notre cas.

6861 M. PELLETIER : Oui. C'est ça, ça se pose moins dans notre cas. Mais, pour avoir vu des créateurs qui étaient à Los Angeles quand j'y étais, c'est des gens qui voulaient s'insérer dans une réalité hollywoodienne aussi et qui pouvaient profiter de leur statut canadien pour rencontrer des exigences. Alors, je veux dire, la demande de la WGC, je pense que c'étaient eux qui ont proposé ça. Elle n'était pas sans fondement.

6862 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : La Présidente est en train de me chicaner en m'envoyant des Post‑it parce que je prends trop de temps. J'avais tout un paquet de questions sur la propriété intellectuelle. Je ne sais pas si vous avez le goût de vous embarquer là‑dedans un vendredi.

6863 M. PELLETIER : On peut…

6864 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Bien, alors, allons‑y gaiement. On parle beaucoup de contrôle créatif. Et plusieurs nous ont rappelé que le contrôle créatif est intimement lié au contrôle financier.

6865 M. PELLETIER : Oui.

6866 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Ce qui nous amène sur la question de la propriété intellectuelle. Je ne veux pas nécessairement vous faire réagir sur le fly à la proposition de la CMPA, mais c'est une proposition qui nous qui nous a aussi été proposée par l’AQPM sur un double modèle de propriété intellectuelle, le modèle A plus restrictif…

6867 M. PELLETIER : Oui. Oui.

6868 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : … où l'entièreté des droits appartient à des ayants droit canadiens, un modèle B plus flexible de façon à mettre la table pour peut‑être… pour davantage de participation étrangère. J'aurais aimé avoir vos impressions là‑dessus, si c'est une piste qui est porteuse.

6869 M. PELLETIER : Bien, je suis content, merci pour la question. Parce qu'on a entendu l’intervention de l'AQPM. On est conscients que le CRTC cherche une forme de flexibilité. Et vous l'avez vu dans notre soumission, on croit qu'il y a une flexibilité, par exemple, au niveau de la coentreprise et de la coproduction pour susciter des partenariats. Et là se pose pour nous la propriété intellectuelle justement. On pense que c'est important que la propriété intellectuelle soit canadienne, d'abord parce que c'est notre patrimoine et qu'on veut être capables d'avoir un contrôle sur notre patrimoine parce que, quand on peut vendre nos œuvres et qu'elles sont enterrées quelque part et inexploitées, bien, on n'y a plus accès en tant que Canadiens. Donc, c'est important que la propriété demeure canadienne.

6870 Je souligne d'ailleurs que nous sommes propriétaires de… Nous avons des droits d'auteur, les scénaristes, les réalisateurs. Et les interprètes ont aussi des droits d'auteur sur leurs prestations. Et donc, on demeure propriétaires. On accorde des licences aux producteurs canadiens. On a des ententes et eux en retour vont exploiter ces droits d'auteur. Et donc, c'est important pour nous que nos interlocuteurs canadiens gardent ce contrôle‑là sur la propriété intellectuelle.

6871 Et j'ai trouvé intéressante la proposition de l’AQPM. Dans leur modèle… Par exemple, si on l'appliquait à la coentreprise, et je pense qu'ils disaient un 51 pour cent canadien, t’sais, ce serait un maximum de 49 pour cent en coentreprise, j’ai trouvé intéressant que la partie canadienne seule compterait en dépenses d'émissions canadiennes. Donc, on reflète en fait la propriété canadienne dans les autres exigences. On reconnaît ça comme une dépense en émissions canadiennes. Et donc, la partie étrangère n'est pas comptabilisée. Ce qui amène plus d'eau au moulin.

6872 Donc, j'ai trouvé que c’était… dans le cas, par exemple, de la coentreprise, si on garde pour nous pour que ça demeure du contenu canadien, c'est l'expression culturelle et artistique encore, donc, qu’on garde scénariste, réalisateur, interprète principal, qu’ils soient obligatoirement canadiens. Mais, là, on peut ouvrir la porte à des partenariats avec quand même un certain contrôle sur la propriété intellectuelle, s'assurer que nos œuvres sont exploitées pour le long terme aussi.

6873 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci.

6874 M^me KONTOYANNI : J’aimerais ajouter une petite précision…

6875 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Oui.

6876 M^me KONTOYANNI : …sur les ayants droit parce que, effectivement, les interprètes aussi, nous avons des droits de suite qu'on appelle sur nos prestations…

6877 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Les droits voisins, oui.

6878 M^me KONTOYANNI : …qui ne sont pas reconnus lorsqu'il y a diffusion en ligne par des compagnies étrangères.

6879 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Um‑hum. Oui, des droits voisins. Merci. Merci pour votre réponse.

6880 Peut‑être une dernière question si on me permet sur l'intelligence artificielle. On en a parlé en filigrane tout au long de cette audience. Les avis sont partagés. Vous avez entendu des gens qui disaient que c’était pas un enjeu. Il y a des gens qui disent que c'est au contraire un enjeu. Mais, ce qui ressort beaucoup, c'est que le CRTC devrait réfléchir à des ‑‑ comment est‑ce qu'on traduirait guardrails? ‑‑ des mesures de sécurité, des paramètres pour assurer une utilisation éthiquement responsable ‑‑ c'est moi qui utilise ces mots‑là, ça n’a pas été dit comme ça ‑‑ de l'intelligence artificielle.

6881 On a eu des intervenants qui ont fait la distinction entre l'intelligence générative qui remplace l'humain, l'intelligence artificielle qui appuie l'humain dans son processus créatif. J'aurais aimé vous entendre à savoir si, effectivement, vous pensez que le CRTC devrait inscrire dans sa réglementation certains paramètres pour encadrer l'utilisation de l'intelligence artificielle et à quoi ça pourrait ressembler.

6882 M^me KONTOYANNI : En ce moment, d'un point de vue d'artiste créateur et interprète, tout le monde doit réfléchir à cette question, vous, nous et les citoyens en général. Donc, oui, il faut réfléchir. Évidemment, j'ignore quelle est votre marge de manœuvre, mais les choses à considérer actuellement, outre ce qu'on a déjà nommé, c’est‑à‑dire y réfléchir sous l'autorisation, la rétribution et la transparence.

6883 Il faut prendre en considération certaines choses. Tout d'abord, que les arts ont évolué en même temps que la technologie et ont souvent été ceux qui ont mis la technologie sur la scène sociale. Donc, on n'est pas étrangers à tout progrès technologique. Mais, en ce moment, il est impossible d'utiliser l'intelligence artificielle générative sans utiliser des contenus qui ont été usurpés à des ayants droit et qui leur ont privé de leurs droits les plus fondamentaux. Donc, déjà en partant, il faut considérer ça.

6884 L'autre chose, c'est qu'on a entendu aussi des gens dire : on n'en est pas encore à perdre des emplois. Ce n'est pas vrai. Nous perdons des emplois à tous les jours. Nous avons perdu la vidéo transcription, par exemple, pour les malentendants… pour les non‑voyants, pardon. Donc, tout un pan de travail de la voix de la part des interprètes qui a été perdu. Nous sommes en train de perdre le doublage si nous ne nous dépêchons pas à le protéger. Donc, nous perdons effectivement des emplois. La publicité, nous sommes en train de perdre la publicité.

6885 Donc, c'étaient des châteaux forts des interprètes qui leur permettaient de bien vivre tout en faisant des projets beaucoup plus artistiques et qui venaient apporter une couleur neuve de notre identité, de notre culture. Donc, c'est des pans importants qui sont perdus.

6886 Nous avons actuellement des exemples concrets et ce n'est pas quelqu'un qui nous l'a dit qui connaît quelqu'un. Je suis sur un conseil d'administration de la société de gestion collective des ayants droit Artisti, celle de l'Union des artistes et un de nos administrateurs, qui performe très bien sur Spotify, a réalisé que Spotify, avec son intelligence artificielle, a créé, vraiment créé des morceaux instrumentaux blues jazz qui ressemblent à son groupe et les met en ondes en utilisant son nom de groupe parce que les noms de band ne sont pas protégés. Donc, Spotify est en train de faire des sous sur le dos d'artistes créateurs en utilisant leur style, mais pas leur musique.

6887 Donc, il y a déjà de très grands dangers, c’est‑à‑dire qu'on les voyait venir il y a même quelques mois. Mais, là, je vous dis, ils sont là. On est vraiment devant le plus grand danger auquel on a eu à faire face jusqu'à maintenant. Et je suis sûre que mon collègue scénariste ici en a beaucoup à dire aussi.

6888 M. THÉRIAULT : Oui, bien, il y a beaucoup une question de propriété intellectuelle aussi dans tout ça. Je prends un exemple d'un… par exemple, un producteur qui a une idée sur une… il veut faire une émission, disons ça. Ça se passe dans un salon de coiffure, disons. Il donne l'idée à Chat GPT. Chat GPT lui sort un synopsis qui est… Chat GPT base son synopsis sur de la propriété, dans le fond, qui ne lui appartient pas, hein, c'est… On lui donne des œuvres déjà existantes. On sort un synopsis de ça. Le producteur va voir un scénariste et lui dit : « Développe‑moi cette idée‑là à partir de ce synopsis‑là. » Le scénariste s'exécute, c’est‑à‑dire qu’il développe, mais à qui appartiennent les droits à ce moment‑là? La question se pose.

6889 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Oui.

6890 M. PELLETIER : Oui. Quant à la deuxième partie de votre question, c'est : comment le CRTC peut intervenir? Bonne chance. C’est…

6891 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Non, mais je veux vous ramener un petit peu sur la question…

6892 M. PELLETIER : Oui.

6893 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …de la définition, parce qu’il y a tout un pan de la conversation qui porte davantage sur la Loi sur le droit d'auteur.

6894 M. PELLETIER : Exact. C’est ça.

6895 M. THÉRIAULT : Oui.

6896 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Ça me ferait plaisir d'en parler, mais ce n'est pas le bon forum, y compris l'exemple que vous proposez.

6897 M. PELLETIER : D’accord.

6898 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : C'est une question de droits d'auteur. Qui est l'auteur? Il y a une jurisprudence en développement là‑dessus.

6899 M. PELLETIER : D’accord.

6900 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Je veux revenir sur la définition et sur l'idée d'introduire peut‑être un cordon de sécurité. Une des idées qui a été proposée, c'est peut‑être de préciser dans la définition que, lorsqu'on parle d'œuvre, on parle d'œuvres créées par des humains.

6901 M. PELLETIER : Voilà.

6902 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Est‑ce que c'est ce genre de paramètre de sécurité ‑‑ encore une fois, je n'ai…

6903 M. PELLETIER : Oui.

6904 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : …pas la traduction en tête de guardrails ‑‑ qui serait approprié de votre point de vue?

6905 M. PELLETIER : Exact. Pour faire faire un 360 degrés, on s'appuie sur une définition du contenu canadien sur les humains. Et, hier, avec ma collègue, on était justement dans un colloque sur l'intelligence artificielle. Et je pense qu'il faut revenir au principe qu'il faut mettre l'humain au centre de la création. Alors, c'est comme ça qu'il faut penser.

6906 Je pense que, peut‑être, une des protections, c'est la transparence, c’est‑à‑dire : des œuvres qui seraient entièrement créées par l'intelligence artificielle devraient être identifiées. On peut remplacer des acteurs. Maintenant, j'ai vu une pub tournée entièrement avec des individus créés par la machine. Alors, il faut que ce soit identifié. Ça, c'est peut‑être la première mesure à laquelle le CRTC peut réfléchir, la transparence parmi les trois principes.

6907 Mais, sinon, c'est encore difficile de mettre des balises parce qu'on se dépatouille tous.

6908 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : « Balises », c’est ça le mot que je cherchais.

6909 M. PELLETIER : Des balises. Oui, moi aussi, je le cherchais.

6910 M^me KONTOYANNI : Financement, financement en lien avec ça, c’est‑à‑dire conditionnel à ce que tout émane essentiellement de l'être humain. Et là, on n'est pas dans l'utilisation d'outils pour faire des horaires. On est vraiment dans quelque chose qui ajoute à la création. Je crois qu'en ce moment, le plus prudent c'est d'empêcher ça, le temps qu'on puisse ouvrir le capot et voir comment ça fonctionne exactement et qu'est‑ce que ça usurpe à qui.

6911 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci. On a menace de beaucoup… Allez‑y. Pardon.

6912 M. THÉRIAULT : Et de faire en sorte que, forcément, une œuvre canadienne est une œuvre qui est faite par un humain. Je pense qu'on ne peut pas, c'est très fondamental.

6913 M. PELLETIER : Par un Canadien.

6914 M. THÉRIAULT : C’est à la fois très compliqué et très fondamental. C'est la base.

6915 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci beaucoup. On me menace de couper mon micro depuis tantôt.

6916 M. PELLETIER : Oui, oui, oui, oui.

6917 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Alors, je vous remercie pour votre générosité puis je vous souhaite bon retour.

6918 M. PELLETIER : Bien, merci à vous.

6919 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci.

6920 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Alors, un gros merci. Peut‑être on peut vous laisser avec le mot final. Merci.

6921 M^me KONTOYANNI : Alors, nous avons commencé cette présentation en mentionnant la fragilité de notre écosystème dans un contexte de crise. De quoi cette crise est faite? De la forte pénétration des géants de la diffusion en ligne, qui accaparent l'attention de nos auditoires et particulièrement celle de nos jeunes en les détournant de nos contenus canadiens.

6922 L'intelligence artificielle générative développée sans aucune balise éthique, qui fait déjà des ravages chez les créateurs en les privant de leurs droits les plus fondamentaux et d'une juste rémunération.

6923 Et le contexte économique qui a fait exploser les coûts de production. Et cela impacte les productions francophones davantage que les anglophones, étant moins bien financées, comme vous le savez.

6924 Les conséquences de cette crise frappent de plein fouet les créateurs que nous représentons et qui sont au cœur du contenu canadien. C'est donc dans ce contexte que nous insistons sur l'importance de maintenir les exigences en ÉIN et de conserver le système de 10 points pour la certification d'une émission canadienne sans assouplir les critères.

6925 À cette étape de notre histoire, nous considérons que le rôle du CRTC, c'est de préserver toute politique, tout règlement, tout critère qui protège la créativité canadienne, la production d'œuvres canadiennes et les artistes canadiens, et qui leur permet de s'épanouir et de prospérer. Nous croyons que c'est une question de souveraineté culturelle et même, aujourd'hui, une question de souveraineté nationale.

6926 Parce que nos œuvres sont l'expression de notre culture, de nos cultures. Affaiblir leurs moyens, leur rayonnement, c'est nous affaiblir comme peuple et nous rendre vulnérables à la pénétration d'une culture étrangère dominante. L'avenir de notre langue et de la culture francophone se joue maintenant. Merci de votre attention et pour votre travail.

6927 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Bon après‑midi.

6928 THE SECRETARY: I will now ask the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications to come to the presentation table.

‑‑‑ Pause

6929 THE SECRETARY: Please introduce yourself for the record, and when you are ready, you may begin.

Présentation

6930 MS. AUER: Good afternoon, Commissioners and Commission staff. I am Monica Auer, the Executive Director of the Forum for Research and Policy in Communications, a not‑for‑profit organization that is focussed on empirical and legal analysis of broadcasting and other policy since 2013.

6931 In the next five minutes, I will comment on what the CRTC is required to do, what Canadians want it to do, and what the Forum suggests that it do.

6932 Watching this hearing has at times brought to mind Act III, Scene 1 of Hamlet, when the Prince of Denmark asks whether it is nobler “to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles.”

6933 The CRTC’s outrageous fortune is to be accused of forcing Canadians to watch audiovisual programming they do not like. In fact, the CRTC is following Parliament’s 57‑year old broadcasting policy: giving Canadians a chance to hear and see themselves in Canada’s broadcasting system. Rather than forcing Canadians to watch Canadian programs, it has used the most measurable bits of a very vaguely written statute to determine how much broadcast programming meets Parliament’s ‘Canadian‑ness’ goal, and has encouraged or required Canadian broadcasters to produce or buy more Canadian programming that in turn employs more people in this country. The Forum supports the Commission in ensuring that Canadians have Canadian choices in what they watch and where they work.

6934 The CRTC has also been accused of long ignoring programming exports. In fact, it first encouraged co‑ventures with non‑Canadians in 1972. It said that “[i]nternational participation in the financing and distribution of Canadian co‑productions can help develop” Canada’s television industry and showcase “the abilities of our creative people on a world‑wide basis.” While the Forum supports the CRTC’s effort to encourage international sales of Canadian audiovisual content, tutelage in broadcasting is not something that Canadians today need, but can instead provide.

6935 Lastly, the CRTC has been accused of highly nitpicky, checklist regulation. In fact, the CRTC is doing exactly what Cabinet told it to do in its November 2023 Directions: setting out “clear, objective and readily ascertainable criteria” for broadcast programming. FRPC supports the Commission’s measurement of concepts that may seem ‑‑ but are not entirely ‑‑ amorphous.

6936 Canadians care about what the CRTC does. We know this from the statistically significant results from FRPC’s random, bilingual telephone survey of 1,502 adults across Canada from January 13th to 15th, 2025 about regulating TV programs or movies, the main results of which were set out in our written submission.

6937 When asked about certification points for audiovisual programming, two out of three Canadians said that programming should be able to get Canadian‑content points if they are about events that took place in Canada. More than half said programming should receive points if it includes recognizably Canadian elements such as buildings like the Calgary Saddledome, or even mailboxes.

6938 When asked about the control of audiovisual content, two out of three said it is important that Canadians hold the rights to sell this content. More than half said it is important that Canadians have full creative control over the content, and over half said that it is important that Canadian content’s creative teams be entirely Canadian.

6939 Based on these data, the Forum does not believe that Canadians would welcome more flexibility in defining Canadian audiovisual content if this weakens Canadian financial and creative control of this programming.

6940 As for AI (artificial intelligence), more than two‑thirds agree that AI should not receive Canadian certification points.

6941 As for what FRPC would like the CRTC to do, last month, BNoC 2025‑52‑3 said that the CRTC is “examining issues regarding data collection, including reporting and confidentiality of collected data, as part of” this, the 2024‑288, proceeding. This statement was extremely welcome. Only the CRTC is legally empowered to collect data from broadcasters about their programming, employment, financial, and other matters. Long‑term, valid, reliable, and retained data are critical both to accountability and to policy evaluation. The CRTC should invite interested parties to a less formal discussion of their data needs and concerns.

6942 To sum up, the Forum’s survey found that, like Parliament, Canadians want more audiovisual content that is more Canadian and that is controlled by Canadians. And, as Cabinet’s direction in section 18 states, the Forum would welcome the publication of more data, describing longer periods of time. Accountability and informed public comment are both built on numbers.

6943 Thank you.

6944 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for your submissions, and thank you for your participation in this proceeding and in other CRTC work. We appreciate it.

6945 I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Naidoo, to start with the questioning.

6946 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thank you so much for being here today. We appreciate it.

6947 So, as you know, the Commission’s preliminary view is that at least 80 percent of the people occupying key positions should be Canadian; however, I know that your organization is against the presence of non‑Canadian talent in certain key creative positions, fearing it would go against the Broadcasting Act.

6948 I’m wondering if you can elaborate for us a little bit on your concerns regarding that?

6949 MS. AUER: I'm in an odd place because I was explaining to someone the other day that I’m part of the cultural illiterati. I’m not very good at ‑‑

6950 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I'm just going to get you to just move your microphone just a little bit closer. I’m having a little bit of trouble ‑‑ it’s a very ‑‑

6951 MS. AUER: I could shout, sorry.

6952 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yes, perfect. Thank you.

6953 MS. AUER: So, I was saying that I told my adult children that I am actually part of the great cultural illiterati. I believe in cultural sovereignty but more importantly, I believe in the law, and Parliament has specifically changed the Broadcasting Act in 2023 to encourage the CRTC to ensure that more people in Canada have jobs. So, I think that moves that would reduce employment in broadcasting actually contravene the broadcasting policy.

6954 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Also under your proposal, what recommendations would you have for us on how the Commission can promote discoverability of Canadian content, both in Canada and also internationally?

6955 MS. AUER: I suppose one of the best ways to support discoverability abroad would be to encourage program sales, but the Commission has already been doing that, for decades. To the extent that broadcasters choose not to try to sell their programs abroad, that is really on them. I don’t know if the Commission would be prepared to impose any kind of regulatory requirement. I think it would be difficult to enforce, in any event. You can’t force non‑Canadians to buy Canadian programming.

6956 As for the notion of discoverability in general, I think ‑‑ yes, it matters. Do I agree that perhaps having discoverability should in some way alleviate any of the other criteria for Canadian control? No, I don’t believe that. I think discoverability is set out by Parliament in a separate section, and Parliament actually wants to have strong creative control by Canadians ‑‑ in Canada.

6957 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. So, given our vast cultural diversity, and considering the policy objective to support diversity and inclusion, particularly in respect to the representation of equity seeking groups, how do you think we can objectively define Canadian programming and determine what qualifies as Canadian and what doesn’t?

6958 MS. AUER: Well, I think the Commission has given it a really good shot for the last 40 years, with the criteria and the CanCon certification points. I think, if the Commission wanted to collect more data about the staff being employed in audiovisual programming, it’s free to do that.

6959 It could also inquire about the staff who actually work at television programming services or other programming services. It could do that as well, but I think at times there’s been a bit of a conflict between the Commission’s jurisdiction in that area and the employment equity agencies that are elsewhere in the government. So, I’m not too sure how far it wants to go on that path. I would like it to go further, but it just has not ‑‑ for decades.

6960 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that. I'm going to move on to IP and copyright now. I’m wondering if you can tell us, how would you recommend that the Commission help to ensure that Canadian creators actually benefit from their stories equitably in partnerships with foreign streamers?

6961 MS. AUER: I think you had a lot of evidence from IBG on that point the other day. I think they were very, very clear on it. I think you’ve also had evidence today as well, and also from other parties who actually work directly in this field.

6962 I think our goal in undertaking the survey was to bring to you some evidence about what Canadians think, and Canadians strongly believe in creative control by Canadians of Canadian programming, including IP rights. So, it’s clear that Canadians who have a basic understanding of the notion of ownership and property believe that Canadians should have that control over their programming.

6963 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you. Let's move to AI. We’ve had a lot of discussions about AI, not just today but in the last week and a bit.

6964 So, I’m going to pick your brain about what your views are, and your current understanding of the uses of AI in the industry. Also, how do you think this will affect the Canadian broadcasting system, it’s creators, the various players? And, is there anything in your answer ‑‑ if you could consider for us anything that you think that we should be guarding against?

6965 MS. AUER: I think a number of your witnesses have already discussed the idea of guardrails. I have to say that I’ve been attending CRTC hearings since 1983. I’ve heard many discussions about codes of conduct, guidelines, best practices. The only thing that seems to work, frankly, are regulations. These days, regulations have a better chance of working because, of course, you now have the power to issue administrative monetary penalties.

6966 I am not understanding exactly how the system will benefit from the use of more artificial intelligence. In particular, I’m not understanding how Parliament’s goal of increasing employment in the system will be assisted by enabling any AI. How is that actually achieving anything in the Act? Granted, there is a reference to technological improvement, but when it starts to actually replace people working, I think you are far off the mark in terms of implementing the broadcasting policy. So no, we don’t like AI in broadcasting.

6967 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. I really appreciate you answering all my questions. That’s all I have, and I hand it back to the Chair.

6968 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much, and I will hand things over to Vice‑Chair Scott.

6969 MS. AUER: I was all set to go.

6970 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much. Yes, I wanted to ask about data, because we’ve heard it come up in a couple different contexts, including earlier today, we heard data asymmetry challenges between producers who are looking to sell, and therefore need to assess the value of the product that they’re selling, but we’ve also heard about data in the context of both the CRTC and others measuring the success of our policy frameworks.

6971 Do those spheres of data needs overlap? Or are we talking about two different things? If you could give us kind of your top five, top three list of what are the data points we should be tracking from a performance perspective?

6972 MS. AUER: Programming would be a really good one to start with, because you collect the logs in television, although you’ve stopped collecting them in radio. You asked an interesting question as to ‑‑ not that all of the questions weren’t interesting; I want to rush in and say that right away in case you get the wrong impression ‑‑ but when you’re talking about the measurement of concepts, and you just mentioned the notion that it’s a difficulty in terms of evaluating the value of the thing you are selling so that you can perhaps maximize the price, which is rational self‑seeking behaviour, and then the notion of implementing the broadcasting policy for Canada, which of course has more than 60 different objectives.

6973 I think some parts of that overlap, and one of the ways in which they overlap in terms of the necessity of data is for independent programming services that require distribution. They need the information that they cannot necessarily easily get all the time from broadcasting distribution undertakings. That’s part of your remit under the Act, obviously.

6974 As for independent producers’ desire to sell abroad to others, I would want to argue that the Commission has that jurisdiction to try to obtain more data on their behalf. I think you’d be off to court if you did it, but I’d sure like you to give it a shot. However, there are many other data that the Commission has that it does not publish or that it does not collect, and those are the data that we need if we want to undertake actual policy evaluation.

6975 And for me, I have to say this is not a particularly new thing, because I was assigned readings in my undergrad Poli Sci program ‑‑ and I’m chagrinned to admit my age on air and on transcript ‑‑ in the early 1980s. Policy evaluation requires data. The CRTC does not publish enough of it.

6976 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Message received.

6977 MS. AUER: You’ll hear it again.

‑‑‑ Rires

6978 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: I have no doubt. A last question I wanted to ask is, going back to the theme of content that’s risky to produce, and the market failures theme that’s been popping up. Given how much the system has changed, given that you referenced the 60 objectives in the Act, what are the principles we should apply when we look to the type of content that actually constitutes a market failure? You know, where it meets both paths of the test, meaning that there’s a policy imperative for it, and market forces are incapable of producing it?

6979 MS. AUER: I think it's an interesting thing, and you have to understand, I grew up with an economist ‑‑ not with an economist ‑‑ my father was an economist anyway, and I am so tired of economists guiding our lives because ‑‑ and I never told my father this joke of course ‑‑ ‘Economists know the price of everything and the value of little’ ‑‑ I should say ‘nothing’, but I was trying to be kind. Economists also have a definition of ‘risk’, and that is, when you can quantify empirically, let’s say losses and gains from undertaking or not undertaking certain behaviours. Right now, we have two problems with the broadcasting system, for instance, in particular with respect to the democratic foundation of the country, which is news and information ‑‑ fewer reporters, fewer employees able to produce news, less news all together. And I can support that statement empirically, because I once took the tedious summer to collect all of the data published by the CRTC in its license renewal application forms from the 1980s, in which broadcasters were then actually reporting how much news they produced every week, and I can tell you for a fact that we are way down from where we were 40 years ago. Despite all of the regulatory flexibility that’s been granted, all of the deregulatory initiatives to reduce regulatory burden, we are getting lose news than ever before and it’s little wonder that people are turning to different sources to see if they can get that news somewhere else. What is ‘risky’ is perhaps what is not being produced.

6980 ‘Market failure’ is not a term that I’ve seen frequently in the old Broadcasting Act or the current Broadcasting Act, and so I question whether that’s something that the Commission has to actually concern itself with. Rather, I think it should be concerning itself with the loss of first‑run original program hours of news, particularly local news, and of course, children’s programming.

6981 Documentaries ‑‑ yes, although I think documentaries rise and fall in terms of popularity. Popularity is not the key; the key is how much programming is being broadcast, how much programming is being produced, and very little of it is.

6982 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you very much for your thoughtful answers.

6983 Madam Chair, I am all done.

6984 THE CHAIRPERSON: I'm wondering if we should strike the economist joke from the record?

6985 MS. AUER: Strike the which?

6986 THE CHAIRPERSON: The economist joke.

6987 MS. AUER: Well, he’s dead. It won’t hurt him. It might hurt other economists, but they should learn.

6988 THE CHAIRPERSON: We would like to turn things back over to you for any concluding thoughts.

6989 MS. AUER: I have some. Thank you for your time. FRPC’s key message today centres around ‑‑ and wait for it ‑‑ data! Decisions made without data can seem whimsical, and what’s worse, they can seem arbitrary. It’s noteworthy that Parliament began to address this matter in section 5.2(2)(a) and (d) of the current Act, and also that Cabinet did, in section 18 of its directions. I think that is the law. It’s not optional. Data matter ‑‑ under the Act and under Cabinet’s directions.

6990 The Forum therefore has two requests: Please stop destroying the data you collect; and please ‑‑ we’ve asked this for a number of years now ‑‑ convene interested parties, perhaps this summer, to discuss the problems and challenges posed by the data currently made public by the CRTC. You have often said ‑‑ and I don’t mean you personally ‑‑ you collectively ‑‑ the Commission have often said that you like informed public comment, but it’s difficult to be informed when you’re dealing with a five‑year range of data from an agency that’s been in existence for 57 years.

6991 Merci encore une fois. Félicitations à Madame Roy, et bonne fin de semaine.

6992 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Bonne fin de semaine.

6993 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now connect to Zoom for our next participant.

‑‑‑ Pause

6994 THE SECRETARY: Hi, Matt. Can you hear me?

6995 MR. KING: I can. Can you hear me?

6996 THE SECRETARY: Yes, we can hear you. So, now we will hear LaRue Entertainment’s presentation.

6997 Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

6998 MR. KING: Salut, bonjour. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Matthew King, and I am President and Producer at LaRue Entertainment, an English language independent production company.

6999 I just want to thank you for your time. I am grateful to be here, and hope my contributions are helpful to you. I feel lucky to be, I think, the last speaker today on Friday. I’m going to make this short and sweet.

7000 Canada has something the world wants, and I’m not just talking about our maple syrup. It’s talent. Our creators, our crews, our storytellers ‑‑ these individuals really are a unique value proposition. The challenge then is helping that talent grow into something audiences actively seek out. So, the real question becomes, how do we create more demand for Canadian programming?

7001 As a producer, I can attest that too often we get bogged down in paperwork and regulatory box‑checking, spending valuable time jumping through hoops instead of putting that energy into making the best possible content from a creative perspective ‑‑ the kind of content that resonates with Canadian audiences and viewers around the world.

7002 I see many of my peers packing up and heading south of the border, not because they want to stop being Canadian, but because the system here makes it harder to do the work they love at the scale they aspire to. What’s in it for them to keep their careers in Canada? If we look at how we define and support Canadian content, it really boils down to CAVCO’s 10‑point system. While it’s designed to protect our cultural identity, it’s inflexible and in many ways outdated.

7003 For example, the CMF ‑‑ a crucial contributor of financing to TV shows in Canada ‑‑ requires productions to hit a strict 10 out of 10 score. That leaves very little room if any for creative inputs from outside the country that could be extremely beneficial. Canadian content matters, but redefining what makes something Canadian could be part of our solution.

7004 If we compare this to the U.K.’s 35‑point system, we see a model that’s more flexible and acknowledges that making great content is nuanced and often the result of collaboration, even if that means working with some individuals and companies outside of our borders. The U.K. model hasn’t weakened their national storytelling. If anything, it’s strengthened it. Just look at a show like The Crown ‑‑ a show deeply rooted in British culture, made with global partners and watched around the world. If The Crown were Canadian, it sadly wouldn’t qualify as CanCon.

7005 Aside from the U.K., I think we can also draw some inspiration from professional sports. In Canada, we cheer for teams like the Toronto Raptors, the Montreal Canadians, or even the Ottawa Senators, to name a few. But do we insist, or do audiences even really care, that every player and head coach is Canadian? Of course not. What we really care about is the team, the brand, and the quality of the game. We want to win. And when these teams win, it’s a win for Canada and it’s a win for our economy. Just like in 2019 when the Raptors won the championship, we all saw the ‘We the North’ phenomenon go nationwide.

7006 I think this same logic can apply to how we think about defining Canadian‑ness of our content. The old system may have made sense when we had just a few broadcasters and limited channels, but today with global streaming platforms, audiences have seemingly unlimited choices and demands on their attention spans. This is why focussing on creating demand for Canadian shows is key.

7007 If we want our stories to stand out and sell internationally, we need to make better products. By giving creators more flexibility to draw creative inputs outside of Canada, we’ll be able to build more recognizable franchises and success stories that resonate not just at home, but globally. I think by reimagining what qualifies as Canadian content and loosening some of the current restrictions, we can open the door to greater demand for Canadian programs. If we also invest in helping producers grow into larger, more resilient companies, we'll build an infrastructure that's really needed to support Canadian content and talent and storytelling.

7008 These stronger Canadian studios will be better‑equipped to compete on the global stage with major US players. With more infrastructure will come more capital; with more capital, more opportunity. I think this will create more jobs, strengthen the creative ecosystem, and allow companies to take bigger creative risks. In short, we'll be in a position to take bold swings and give ourselves the best chance to hit more homeruns.

7009 Thanks a lot for your time, and that's it.

7010 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for joining us on a Friday afternoon. We really appreciate your participation, and we're glad that you participated in the proceeding.

7011 I just have a couple of questions, so I'll start off and then I'll turn things over to my colleagues. So we appreciate you sharing your perspectives as an independent production company. And while we don't oversee the CMF, we've heard a number of calls for more flexibility to support partnerships with foreign creatives. So how can we at the CRTC help foster those partnerships while still maintaining a strong Canadian presence in Canadian content?

7012 MR. KING: Whilst making a strong presence ... I think I don't fully understand your question. I think that if you looked at the point system, maybe that would be a place to start. Do you want to actually ask your question again? I'm not fully sure I fully understand what you're asking.

7013 THE CHAIRPERSON: We've heard a lot about the need for more flexibility. And you know, we've heard about the need to support partnerships with foreign creatives. And so the question really gets to how do we foster those partnerships with foreign creatives while still maintaining that Canadian presence?

7014 MR. KING: Well, I think like I brought up, you know, the UK model. I mean there is an example of a system that allows for Britishness of their shows without necessarily putting it in a 10‑point box. You got 35 points. Part of the points are about, you know, using British facilities or is the story British. So, you know, you could look at that as an example.

7015 I don't, you know, I don't really have necessarily all the answers to your questions. I'm more just trying to give you my perspective of what it's like to work as an independent producer in the industry and how there's a lot of I guess red tape and a lot of box‑checking and a lot of paperwork that you end up having to do as an individual. And it just seems to take away from what truly matters, which is kind of trying to make the best show for Canadians. We end up having to spend so much time and effort figuring out guidelines and whether to match this fund with that fund and to make it qualify effectively. So that's the hard part, I think ‑‑ or part of the hard part.

7016 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that. And I think actually you've touched on something that I know my colleague would like to ask you about in terms of some of the challenges, so I think I know where you're going to go with that, but ‑‑

7017 MR. KING: Uh‑oh.

7018 THE CHAIRPERSON: But I'll leave that for my colleague. Perhaps I could just ask one other question, then ‑‑

7019 MR. KING: Sure.

7020 THE CHAIRPERSON:  ‑‑ before turning it over to Commissioner Paquette.

7021 In your intervention, you do briefly talk about the need to bring in non‑Canadian key creative into a production in some cases. And I'm just wondering if you could tell us a little bit more about the advantages and disadvantages of doing that.

7022 MR. KING: Sure. I think a lot of Canadians, you know, the minute they have a certain degree of success, they say, You know what? I'm going to pack my bags; I'm going to go down to LA; and I'm going to make it big. And part of that is because they want to work with world‑class talent.

7023 And it's not to say that Canada doesn't have world‑class talent; it's to say the US is a far bigger market. They're right next door. And we want to work ‑‑ you know, writers want to work in writers rooms and learn from the best and learn from people that are working on a very high level.

7024 And I think that by incorporating skill sets and creative inputs from individuals that are, you know, as the writer, someone who wrote on The Crown or someone who wrote on, you know, if we had, I don't know, Mike White from White Lotus to model because he's not Canadian. So it just means that the only way for that to work is you kind of have to leave the country.

7025 So I think that there could be a sharing of resources. It doesn't have to be so binary. Like you know, we can't work with any Americans on this show because, you know, that way it's not going to fly and we're going to lose jobs out of it. It's like I think it's just we need to think a little bit more bigger picture and say, Look, how can we use the best in the world while still maintaining our Canadianness and identity and use all those resources? And maybe they have a great idea or a great way of making TV shows that we can learn from and then apply to our next TV show or movie or content production.

7026 And that sharing of resources, I think, could be really helpful to us as opposed to being in such a closed system where we can only use the people that are here.

7027 So does that help kind of answer your question?

7028 THE CHAIRPERSON: It does. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. I will turn things over to my colleague Commissioner Paquette.

7029 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hi. Hi, Mr. King. I have the honour of asking ‑‑

7030 MR. KING: Hi, bonjour.

7031 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I have the honour of asking I think the last question of the week, so.

7032 MR. KING: Oh, wow.

7033 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So and I only have one question. In addition to what you shared with us so far, could you share some of the biggest challenges you're facing right now as an independent producer in creating Canadian content?

7034 MR. KING: Sure. Just off the top of my head ‑‑ I mean, I don't know if these are the biggest challenges. But I mean as mostly a television producer, I basically have two places to take my TV show. I've got CBC, or I've got Bell Media. You know, Rogers is busy making Law & Order, and they've used all their money for that. So there's just limited time slots for television shows, and it's extremely competitive.

7035 So as an independent, there just isn't really the money or resources there. So a lot of people are leaving the business, even, because they can't compete and they can't ‑‑ there's not enough to go around. And it seems sort of almost like closed and guarded, in a way, where I think maybe what would be helpful is if we worked together a little more.

7036 And if there was some more infrastructure, and we built up some Canadian studios, and I could, you know, work with a Canadia studio to help, you know, back my little tiny independent shingle, that might be more helpful. Because there's just not a lot.

7037 So I've got two places to go. If CBC passes or Bell passes, that's it. I spent a year developing a TV show, and now I'm out of business. So I really need that international market.

7038 And also the broadcasters are hurting, and they need us to also bring money outside of Canada. They say, Hey, you know, I'm going to give you the show, but you really got to bring in, you know, 30, 40, 50 per cent of the financing from outside. So how am I going to do that? It's tough. What would be helpful is if I could work with ‑‑ you know, if we had sort of more of a Canadian studio system or something to that effect.

7039 And you know, there's little resources here and there. There's an export fund here or whatnot. But it's not really substantial to the effect that you can keep the lights on, so to speak. So it's just really challenging.

7040 And I think that, you know, I consider myself pretty successful, but in a really scrappy way. It's been very tough to get to this point. And I see a lot of other people not having that success. So hopefully, there's some more opportunities.

7041 And I think loosening some of the restrictions would help with that, where there was more flexibility in terms of bringing on international partners, since that's such a big part of how we get financed now. So I need 30, 40 per cent of a budget. How am I going to make it relevant to the UK buyer/financier or the US buyer/financier if I can't use any of their people on the project? Suddenly they're going to be like, Well, what's in it for me? It's just this whole Canadian thing. It doesn't make sense now for what I want to make.

7042 So it doesn't mean it has to be not Canadian. We can still shoot it in Canada. But you know. So it's either that ‑‑ that's kind of the more ‑‑ I'm on the more like IP original content side. And then there's obviously service production, which a lot of producers do to kind of keep the lights on. And they're really just, you know, work for hire. There's that model, so. Anyways, I hope that's helpful.

7043 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah, it is. Thank you. Thank you very much.

7044 MR. KING: You're welcome. Thanks for having me.

7045 THE CHAIRPERSON: I will turn things back over to you for any concluding remarks, but I do want to say on behalf of the Panel thank you very taking the time to intervene, because we know that this takes time. And we appreciate having your perspectives on the public record as we consider our next steps. So on that note, perhaps, I can turn things back over to you for anything that we haven't covered or that you would like to add.

7046 MR. KING: Sure. I mean, you guys have done an excellent job. I've followed a lot of the proceedings the past week. And I just want to say I think it's great that you're doing this, that you're really reaching out to everybody to get all these different perspectives. And obviously, there's a lot of different perspectives to accommodate. But I trust that you guys are really going to find a good solution here and that we can all work together.

7047 I think, yeah, like in terms of the ownership piece and all that stuff, I mean, for me personally, that isn't as important. It's definitely important to some, and I can definitely see the importance of hanging on to Canadian IP. But from my perspective, it's more important to get the work and to be working and to have a job and to make a living. So if that means that I give up a little ownership, that's fine with me. I know that might not be easy for everyone to hear, but that's the truth, you know. And I think that's also how it works in the US studio system.

7048 So aside from that, yeah, I think, thank you just for having me. And if you have any other questions or you want to reach out to me at a later date, you're more than welcome to. And I really appreciate your time, and I hope you all have a great weekend.

7049 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much.

7050 MR. KING: You're welcome.

7051 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. This concludes today's hearing. We will be back Monday at 9 a.m.

7052 Have a nice weekend.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajournée à 16 h 12 pour reprendre le lundi 26 mai 2025 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Ada DeGeer-Simpson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton