Transcription, Audience du 26 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

7054 Canada Media Fund

7265 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Radio-Canada

7484 Quebec official language minority community (OLMC)

7603 Disability Screen Office

7670 On Screen Manitoba

7697 Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association

7799 FilmOntario

Transcription

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

Gatineau (Québec)

‑‑‑ L'audience débute le lundi 26 mai 2025 à 8 h 59

7053 THE SECRETARY: Good morning, everyone. We will start this morning with the presentation of Canada Media Fund. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

7054 MS. CREIGHTON: Thank you. Good morning. Thank you, Chairperson Eatrides and Commissioners, for inviting the Canada Media Fund to appear before you today. I am Valerie Creighton, president and CEO, and accompanying me today, to my right, are Mathieu Chantelois, EVP of Marketing and Public Affairs; Joy Loewen, VP of Growth and Inclusion; and Richard Koo, VP of Analytics and Strategic Insights. To my left are Rod Butler, VP of Content and Regulatory; and Kyle O'Byrne, director of Public Affairs, who I think you've seen quite a bit of. He's obsessed with the CRTC, so this is a good thing, we think.

7055 Instead of starting with data, definitions, or policy rationales, we want to share with you a fundamental belief: Canada's national identity and our distinct culture are intertwined through the power of our stories. They shape who we are, how we see the world, and how the world sees us.

7056 Now, this fundamental belief isn't new. We live next to the most dominant producer and distributor of media in the world. The importance of nurturing, preserving, and promoting Canadian culture has been a national policy objective since 1939 with the establishment of the National Film Board. Commissioners of the Massey Report in 1951 saw their task as “nothing less than the spiritual foundations of our national life.”

7057 Well, today, our national life is very different. The digital transformation has created an open, global, and dynamic marketplace. But the fundamental belief has not changed. It's why we are all in this room today. Our national identity and cultural sovereignty are shared and declared through our stories.

7058 From the NFB's first Oscar for a Canadian film in 1949 for Churchill's Island to nine Emmys for Schitt's Creek, to North of North breaking into Netflix's top 10 in 27 countries, to the innovation and 60 million players of Dead by Daylight with hundreds of millions in sales, our creators have delivered on the promise of history. Our authentic content and longstanding public policies that support it are the envy of the world.

7059 Canadian content creation has been an economic driver and a job creator in communities big and small across this nation, contributing to an industry that generates over $11 billion to Canada's GDP and 270,000 jobs.

7060 However, strong headwinds are before us, jeopardizing the legacy of the past and the promise of the future. Canada's cultural and national sovereignty is once again threatened by the dominance of foreign platforms and services and increasing geopolitical and economic uncertainty.

7061 But Canada has woken up. Our citizens from coast to coast to coast have demonstrated their pride and ownership of this country through their purchasing power, their belief in the value of our nation, and our unique, authentic national identity. This moment offers us an extraordinary opportunity. The CRTC's process to modernize the definition of Canadian content and reimagine a contribution framework to support its creation and distribution isn't just timely. It's urgent.

7062 So, how do we get there? We believe that certain key principles will unlock a new, prosperous future for Canadian content creation.

7063 The new framework should prioritize creation over collection. Buying previously produced content is no substitute for its creation. A dollar invested in production funds through the CMF or Canadian Independent Production Funds is vastly more beneficial to the broadcasting system and the Canadian public than a dollar invested in acquisitions. And many of these acquired programs are likely to have been paid for by the Canadian system at the outset. This is why we urge the Commission to eliminate the ability for foreign streamers to redirect up to 75 per cent of their CMF contribution.

7064 Less investment in original content means fewer opportunities for our authentic, diverse stories to reach audiences at home and abroad. Original stories are the Canada's engine and beating heart.

7065 M. CHANTELOIS : Nous voudrions aussi souligner aujourd’hui un principe qui, pour nous, est fondamental : les fonds constituent un outil de politique culturelle extrêmement efficace. Sans eux, les genres essentiels comme les dramatiques, les émissions pour enfants, les documentaires, les émissions pour les jeunes risquent d’en souffrir.

7066 La meilleure façon d’assurer que ces contenus soient garantis et qu’ils fonctionnent bien est de garantir des contributions stables et substantielles aux fonds de production.

7067 Pour cela, nous vous proposons trois mesures concrètes pour renforcer ces contributions.

7068 Dans un premier temps, nous suggérons d’élargir l’exigence des contributions à toutes les entreprises de radiodiffusion et à tous les groupes dont les revenus atteignent ou dépassent 25 millions de dollars.

7069 Dans un deuxième temps, nous croyons qu’il faut éliminer la mesure qui permet actuellement à des entreprises en ligne de rediriger leurs contributions vers des acquisitions au lieu de vers les fonds du Fonds des médias du Canada.

7070 Enfin, et c’est également ce que propose le Conseil, permettre aux entreprises de choisir de contribuer davantage aux fonds plutôt que de se conformer à une exigence de dépenser en émissions canadiennes.

7071 Ces mesures permettraient de soutenir efficacement les programmations à risque, tout en respectant la flexibilité du nouveau système. Elles contribueraient aussi à atteindre les grands objectifs de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion.

7072 Les contributions au Fonds des médias du Canada et aux Fonds de production indépendants certifiés soutiennent directement des choses extrêmement importantes : la création de contenu original, la production indépendante, dans toutes les régions du pays, en français, en anglais, en langues autochtones et aussi dans d’autres langues également, en plus de soutenir les peuples autochtones qui seraient en charge de leur propre contenu, des groupes méritant l’équité, et des communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire.

7073 Ces principes sont au cœur même de l’ADN du Fonds des médias.

7074 MS. CREIGHTON: Finally, we believe in a regulatory definition of Canadian content that is administratively sound and culturally resonant. We are intrigued by the discussion of expanding the number of roles in the point scale, recognizing that a broad array of creative professionals from around the world often work together to bring a shared vision to life.

7075 However, in consideration of the public interest, we know that Canadian audiences want to see our country and the diverse culture reflected on screen. This is why we support the inclusion of cultural elements, such as a Canadian setting, as an optional component of the new definition. We also propose a project‑centric approach to content certification that recognizes the unique creative structures of different genres and formats while ensuring creative control remains in Canadian hands.

7076 Commissioners, Madam Chair, judging by the dozens of intervenors who have appeared before you and this unique moment in Canada's history, we are clearly at an inflection point. We can choose to build a framework that merely maintains the status quo. Or we can create something much more powerful: a framework that inspires, uplifts, and propels our creators and culture forward.

7077 The challenges we face are daunting. But stories have the power to reflect the world in which we live and to imagine the world we seek to build. For over three decades, the CMF has been a champion of these stories.

7078 This is a moment of profound opportunity for courage, for culture, for Canada!

7079 Thank you. We're happy to take any questions you may have.

7080 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much to the CMF for your participation. Thank you for starting day eight with us. We really appreciate you being here.

7081 I will turn things over to the vice‑chair of Broadcasting.

7082 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. Happy to see you. Thank you for the submission as well. It was very detailed, and so I think my questions might be a little pointy to fill the gaps rather than broad questions, because I think you've addressed them quite well in your submission.

7083 So I'll start perhaps with some questions around the definitions. So in your submission, you recommend a “project‑centric point test” where the denominator would be adjusted based on the specific key creative roles for each individual project. Some intervenors, while not opposed to an idea of a flexible approach to recognize, for instance, specificities of a particular genre ‑‑ I'm think of documentaries in particular ‑‑ have argued that some positions should be mandatory, such as director, the writer, and first role. Could you give an example of how a project‑centric points test would work?

7084 MS. CREIGHTON: Yes. I am going to turn that over to Kyle, but just before he speaks, I think the real important point on the project‑centric is flexibility, that we don't tie ourself up into a number of definitions that restrict growth and opportunity for the future.

7085 Kyle, do you want to speak to that?

7086 MR. O'BYRNE: Sure. So we would propose, as you mentioned, a project‑centric model which would involve, first, the CRTC establishing a list of qualified positions that would count under the points test. So we suggest that the positions listed in a proposed 15‑point test as being a good starting point. And then when a project comes to you for certification, the qualified positions that were used for that projection are assessed, so the total of that becomes the denominator. And of course the numerator would be the Canadian points.

7087 So just to give you a clear example ‑‑ I realize it's a bit hypothetical ‑‑ so let's say a live action documentary has a director, a screenwriter, a DOP, picture editor, and music composer. That totals seven points. So to be certified as Canadian, it would need to reach four out of seven, a majority. That's the model.

7088 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: All right. So no mandatory position, because certainly a lot of intervenors have stated that we could consider almost a two‑step definition, where you've got a fixed number of mandatory positions. And many of them have argued that it should be the director, the writer, and you know, the first interpreter. And the flexibility would be through a series of bonus points that you get. And that's where you would get the flexibility, for instance, to reflect some of the specificities that come with specific genres of content. So that's not what you're talking about.

7089 MR. O'BYRNE: Not exactly. But the model you are suggesting could lend itself well to this model as well. If the Commission did decide that they wanted to make some positions mandatorily Canadian, then this model could still apply. You would still need to ‑‑ it would still be ‑‑ the denominator would vary from project to project with some positions being mandatory, but they would still need to pass whatever threshold you establish, whether that's 51 per cent or 60 per cent.

7090 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Okay, all right. Thank you, that clarified things.

7091 With respect to cultural elements, which is something that the Commission is exploring, as you saw in the Notice of Consultation, you believe that some should be included, specifically settings, which echoes some of what we've heard from other intervenors, such as the NFB. Alternatively, some intervenors have suggested including a diversity criteria like they have in the UK point system.

7092 So how do you ensure Canadianness beyond the nationality of the creators without hindering creative freedom? And should there be, again, exceptions built in the definition for certain genres such as documentaries?

7093 MS. CREIGHTON: I think the issue on the cultural elements, we see it as much more flexible and optional. So there was some research done, and out of nine countries, considering cultural content with criteria like nationality, which Canada has, location, and cultural content, Canada is the only country that has a hundred per cent nationality as a criteria. So if eight countries include other elements, then obviously it's possible to assess a project on its cultural content or location objectivity.

7094 Another example might be a project based on a Canadian literary property. So if this is an important piece of our cultural history, why might not we count it as one of the optional elements in a structured series like that?

7095 So Rod, do you want to just talk about what we heard in the CMF report a little bit in terms of audiences?

7096 MR. BUTLER: Sure. And so audiences ultimately ‑‑ they want to see themselves on screen. They want to ensure that nationhood and sovereignty and looking at their communities on screen is reflected back. So I think when we're talking about cultural tests and flexibility, in our submission, again, it is an option in a flexible matrix. So we again agree with a lot of the principles that the CRTC has put forward. And I think there's enough ideas on the table to integrate a cultural component.

7097 Currently, at the CMF, setting in Canada is a requirement with some exceptions for fantastical plots or documentaries that must be filmed abroad. So I think within the flexibility there are benchmarks and guardrails. But I think, as partners in this process, we wanted to offer some proposals for the CRTC to think about that hadn't been raised previously.

7098 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Clearly, we are talking about something that would be optional, not necessarily mandatory. Because the example that comes to mid is ‑‑

7099 MR. BUTLER: Correct.

7100 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ Toopy and Binoo, which is a very well‑known kids' program. And I don't know what's Canadian about Toopy and Binoo. And you know, I guess it would be challenging to think about a system where this becomes a mandatory condition ‑‑

7101 MR. BUTLER: Correct.

7102 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ for access to funding. Am I understanding correctly what you're saying?

7103 MS. CREIGHTON: Yeah, we don't see it as mandatory. We certainly see it as optional.

7104 But I guess just in terms ‑‑ you're quite right in terms of assessing. You don't want a lot of subjectivity, for sure. But also not a lot of restrictions. So we'd looked into a number of other countries as a part of another process we're working on, modernization of the sector, with the Department of Canadian Heritage. And clearly, other countries do it, so there are ways to assess it that don't get you into that trap of being totally subjective, for sure. But we don't see it as mandatory, but optional.

7105 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: And any reaction to this idea of perhaps including a diversity criteria, a little bit like the UK? Optional?

7106 MS. CREIGHTON: Optional, yeah, for sure.

7107 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: It was put forward as an idea.

7108 MS. CREIGHTON: Yeah, it is a good idea, and it could be optional. I think, again, we just don't want to end up tying up the process of creativity and forcing a lot of things to be mandatory, but still recognize how diverse the country is, how audiences want to see themselves on the screen.

7109 Certainly, whenever we have content that's up for awards or national awards or festivals, Canadians are very proud of it if they see themselves reflected. And I think our Indigenous content and our content from creators that are in underrepresented communities have demonstrated that to us.

7110 So I think flexibility is really key here with some options, not mandatory ‑‑ it has to be this, this, and this. We've kind of been trapped by that for a long time in the country.

7111 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Two other options that were put on the table by different intervenors, one was by Télé‑Québec, who recommended perhaps adding langue de tournage as a way to support French‑language content. So that's something that they put forward, if you have any reaction.

7112 And another one, and that's my last question on the definition, is around residency requirements. I think the point was made that you need to be in Canada, paying taxes in Canada. That should be the expectation with respect to certain positions. I mean, it wasn't unanimous. It was a couple of intervenors who put the idea forward. So I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on both ideas.

7113 MS. CREIGHTON: Well, on the language piece, certainly, we know that there is a big concern in the country about the French language and maintaining the language in the country.

7114 And on the residency, it's a really interesting question, Commissioner. I'd like to think about that a bit more and maybe come back to you with that. I can think of a few examples of where very strong Canadians who don't happen to be resident in the country at the time of doing a project shouldn't be prevented, I don't think, from making content and bringing content forward that could still be certified. But I think I'd have to give that more thought.

7115 I don't know if anybody on the team ‑‑ any comment from anyone? No? Okay. So we'll think about that one.

7116 But on the language issue, obviously, it's important to the country, so again, another option, maybe not mandatory. I would assume they would have proposed it be mandatory because of those concerns.

7117 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Yeah, with respect to the residency requirement, maybe you can include that in your final submission.

7118 MS. CREIGHTON: Mm‑hmm.

7119 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: That would be most useful.

7120 MS. CREIGHTON: Certainly, we will.

7121 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much.

7122 Let's move on to your very detailed proposal with respect to CPE. So you note that contributions to funds should be an obligation shared equitably by all types of broadcasting undertakings. How do you define equitable?

7123 MS. CREIGHTON: I am going to pass that to Rod. He always talks about equity and equitable.

7124 MR. BUTLER: I think when we talk about equitable, we realize, obviously, that sometimes equality and equity are not always considered the same thing, but people use them at times interchangeably. When we think about CPE, we're always bringing it back to ‑‑ and it's a big part of our submission ‑‑ the 1.5 per cent incentive. And we really want to talk to the Commission about looking at CPE and contributions concurrently.

7125 The Commission already started to go down this path in the decision in the sense of it was a contribution decision that opened the door up with the incentive of some sort of expenditure element. And so “equitably,” in terms of your question, cannot just be looked at through the lens of expenditure. It has to be looked at contribution and expenditure as one.

7126 We feel, obviously, the initial base contribution with the 1.5 per cent incentive is really something where it should be, in the Commission's own words, a foundational and base piece. And so there should not be an element in the base contribution to have flexibility. It should form that bedrock foundation of step one of the new regulatory framework.

7127 Moving to expenditure, then, once you have that bedrock in place, I think equitable at that stage can then start to take on different shapes. And then we can look at it through a different lens because everyone is contributing to that base bedrock foundation.

7128 We realize, obviously, that the singular needs of each individual intervenor that has been before the Commission has different versions of equitable. And I think where the CMF finds itself is our needs are not the CMF's needs; they are the needs of the industry, as we are this conduit.

7129 So for equitable to land this plane, I would say that it's going to be very different from player to player with regards to expenditure. But before we can start to look at the different shades in that rainbow, the bedrock foundation of the 1.5 per cent incentive, the 2 per cent to the CMF should be restored.

7130 MR. O'BYRNE: I want to quickly add that this idea of equitability, which is intrinsically tied in to flexibility, is built into the CRTC's own proposal in 138. So you established that the base contribution Rod spoke to applies to everyone, and on top of that, a flexible financial requirement. And this is where the flexibility piece of equitability is built in. So and that could take the form of a CPE. Also we recommend contributions to funds, also training is in there.

7131 So I would say the second tier is really where the flexibility piece of equitability fits in.

7132 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Yeah, that clarifies for me. Let me ask another question on that bedrock base contribution. You note in your submission that some categories of broadcasting undertakings or ownership groups could be exempted from the base contribution, including but not necessarily limited to public broadcasters, educational networks, and non‑profit. What exactly are you talking about in terms of an exemption? Are we talking a perpetual exemption? A temporary, for example, to allow a player to address a particular crisis? How would it work?

7133 MR. O'BYRNE: The idea of exemptions here, so just to be clear, what we're talking about here is applying the base contribution to all broadcasting undertakings. And to be clear, a broadcasting undertaking is the umbrella term for programming undertakings, distribution undertakings, and online undertakings. So right now, the base contribution obviously only applies to stand‑alone online undertakings. The idea would be to apply it broadly, across the board, on the broadcasting ownership group level, where possible. But also, it doesn’t need to be a hard and fast rule. There can be exceptions built in.

7134 These are just a few examples that we provided, specifically when it comes to ed nets, provincial broadcasters ‑‑ you know, they get public money, so it would be a bit of an odd scenario then for the federal government to mandate money being pulled out from provincial coffers going into the CMF. That seems a bit messy, so we’re just offering ‑‑ this isn't meant to be an exhaustive list; it’s just the starting of our thinking in terms of what could be excluded.

7135 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you for this.

7136 Earlier during the hearing, the AQPM and CMPA suggested the development of a code of practice to support negotiations between independent producers and broadcasters, including streamers.

7137 I was curious to know if you had views on the feasibility, on whether it’s a good idea, what it would actually bring to the equation?

7138 MS. CREIGHTON: Thank you for that question. You know, it is a discussion that’s been around for a while, and I don’t think it’s appropriate for us, as a funder of those productions, to speak to the details of how that might work.

7139 But I would say this ‑‑ that we have a system in Canada where there’s always been an imbalance of power basically, where for the CMF, our sole trigger up until last year when we brought in the distributors, had been the broadcasters. And whenever you have anybody ‑‑ it doesn’t matter who it is ‑‑ in a position where they have the full power to make decisions, and full control, there’s always an imbalance of power.

7140 So, whether it’s the code of practice that’s referred to by the AQPM and the CMF, which we certainly don’t oppose, it’s possible that that might be a way forward to redress that power imbalance, but the thing about that kind of scenario is everybody has to agree to it.

7141 And my observation is, in Quebec, in the French market, it’s a slightly different relationship between the producers and broadcasters than we have in English Canada. Quebec is a smaller entity in terms of a market. The producers and broadcasters there work very well together; it’s almost like a partnership in many ways.

7142 That hasn’t historically been the case in English Canada. Of course, I’m generalizing; it depends on the broadcaster and the relationships. But about ‑‑ I don’t know how many years ago was COVID ‑‑ before COVID ‑‑ now it’s like “before creation” almost ‑‑ before COVID, we worked really closely with a senior group of leaders in the broadcast and production sector to try to look at a new model, to have a stronger partnership and relationship, and we were very close, and then COVID hit and everybody got preoccupied with that.

7143 So, we’re not opposed to it; we think it’s a very interesting idea. I think it’s up to the people involved that would have to meet the definition of that code of practice to hopefully agree and build a stronger relationship for a better Canada when it comes to content‑making.

7144 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you for this. Let’s move to at‑risk programming. I know that my colleagues will have questions about news because your submission does talk a lot about the news, and we certainly heard a lot of comments about the dire state of news, but I’m sure my colleague to my right will have ‑‑ and I know we’ll have questions on French‑language programming in particular, but I’d like to hear your views on kids programming. We heard a lot of intervenors making compelling calls for attention to be brought to ‑‑

7145 MS. CREIGHTON: Yeah.

7146 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ the situation it faces. And if we were indeed to consider eliminating PNIs, for example, the impact this may have, and that maybe we shouldn’t be trusting that the broadcasters will naturally invest in kids programming unless there is a very specific requirement.

7147 So, I would be interested in hearing your views from the funders’ perspective, what’s going on with kids program, and how do we ensure that we continue to invest in something that used to be the pride of Canadian content?

7148 MS. CREIGHTON: Thank you so much for that question, because it has been on our mind for four years ‑‑ the issues of kids, from the perspective of the CMF.

7149 Our target for kids content is 22 percent in our overall funding structure. It is now at 8 percent. So, you’re quite right. Even with an incentive, it’s not happening in the current system. We’ve heard too that we don’t need to do anything about kids because they’re all on YouTube. Well, that’s partly true. The kids are on YouTube. Kids aren’t a genre; they’re an audience, and of a certain age group, many of them have been watching content on YouTube since they could turn on a computer.

7150 The interesting thing about that is, YouTube is a platform; it doesn’t create content, and it certainly doesn’t pay for it. And the other question that we’ve talked about is, the content still has to be created; and what are the kids watching on YouTube? They’re watching stories from all over the world. They’re watching ideas from all over the world. So, where is Canada’s identity in that particular platform, in terms of strong, compelling stories for kids?

7151 The volume of content on YouTube is always of concern, and how kids can find their way through it. And I just want to give you an example of how we’ve tried to transition. We focussed on kids and documentary this past year in terms of the point of view documentary in particular being at risk, but a number of initiatives in kids content ‑‑ which Rod can certainly speak to ‑‑ but about three years ago, I think it was, we started to notice this trend, and we thought, okay, what can we do to start looking at this differently? So, we built a very strong partnership with the Shaw Rocket Fund, that specializes in kids, and one project that comes to mind was a wonderful kids story called Dennis and Me ‑‑ 38 million views on YouTube for that Canadian piece of content specializing in kids’ ideas.

7152 So, there is something in that that I think we do need to consider. So, it’s the balance of, how do we get great kids stories made, and then distributed differently? Because in our current model, you’re quite right, the golden age of kids that we were so proud of as a country, has slipped away.

7153 So, I think, if we could start with ‑‑ maybe first I’ll start with Richard, actually. Richard, to you want to speak to some of the research that we’ve done on the kids space? And then, I’ll have Rod speak to the new initiatives, if that’s all right?

7154 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Yes, that’s for instance ne.

7155 MS. CREIGHTON: Okay.

7156 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you so much.

7157 MR. KOO: Thanks, Val.

7158 Madam Vice‑Chair, we did some research through the CMF genre report that was released a number of months ago, on children’s and youth, and documentary programming, and we did some surveys of the producers in that space.

7159 And first of all, of those surveyed, 90 percent of children’s and youth producers target the 6 to 11 age demographic. Now, in terms of viewing, there is certainly a lot of viewing that has gone to YouTube. From our test data that we’ve seen, 20 to 25 percent of viewing in that age demographic, 2 to 11, is going to YouTube. But still, over 50 percent is still on linear channels. So, there is still an audience for content on linear channels.

7160 Certainly, the challenges that linear broadcasters have had ‑‑ especially children’s broadcasters ‑‑ in licensing has been a problem, and that is respective in terms of sort of the decrease in the amount of commissioning that’s happened, but as Rod will be able to speak to later on, we’ve made moves in terms of the distributor program in order to be able to start to improve that.

7161 The other thing I would note from the survey that we did is that, in terms of the target markets that these producers are looking at, it’s almost equal ‑‑ 41 percent in our survey target English audiences as their primary target, and 39 percent target a global audience. So, there is an opportunity also here, if we continue to finance projects from children’s and youth producers for global exports to continue ‑‑ and that may be an avenue to certainly increase funding and opportunities for this content to be made. And that’s what our research has shown through that.

7162 I’ll throw it to Rod.

7163 MR. BUTLER: Sure. And just to follow up on what Val said, so, the CMF has obviously noticed the downward trend in kids licensing in broadcasters, and so, with our partners in government we’ve expanded the kind of what we call the “CMF triggers” ‑‑ those that have the ability to unlock CMF funds to Canadian‑owned and ‑controlled distribution companies. We have the CR5 prong approach with carve‑outs for kids content, extra points in our selective programs, more money in development ‑‑ so, this kind of suite of initiatives to ensure that the marketplace has as many options as possible.

7164 And in terms of answering your first question, how kids fits in with PNI, I think the CMF is obviously encouraged by the Commission’s approach to flexibility, but flexibility cannot be absolute. There has to be some sort of guardrails. And so, if the CRTC is going to move away from requiring PNI to rely purely on market dynamics, and the CMF ‑‑ again, in our current state of revenue decline ‑‑ if the CMF that supports most of the PNI in Canada is not supported with robust and predictable funding ‑‑ and the CRTC moves away from a requirement of PNI, that double whammy would not be sustainable. It is untenable. So, while we encourage flexibility in the stick of the CRTC, we are here to strongly advocate to have a well‑resourced carrot, in the CMF.

7165 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: And of course there is an access piece to this equation, which will be covered in the next hearing, I am sure.

7166 I know my colleagues have a lot of questions, and I am mindful of time, so I think I will just end here. Thank you very much.

7167 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you, Madam Vice‑Chair.

7168 I will turn things over to Commissioner Paquette.

7169 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bonjour. Vous avez abordé la question de la production en français. Je voudrais vous entendre plus sur cette question. Vous dites dans votre mémoire que… Il y a une phrase qui m’a frappée. Vous dites : « Les services de diffusion en contenu étrangers ont clairement montré que la dynamique du marché à elle seule ne suffisait pas à soutenir la création d’émissions originales de langue française. Pouvez‑vous élaborer à ce sujet? J’aimerais comprendre ce qui vous amène à cette conclusion.

7170 M. O'BYRNE : Alors, oui, effectivement, les dynamiques du marché, on voit par le biais des productions qui ont été commandées par les entreprises en ligne n’ont pas… les dépenses qu’ils ont faites en émissions canadiennes n’ont pas… il n’y a pas eu de création d’émission originale en français, au moins pas beaucoup. On a examiné de notre côté des exemples de production avec la participation d’une entreprise en ligne et il y en a très, très peu. Alors, voilà.

7171 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Ça fait que vous dites que vous avez examiné, donc, en regardant ce qui a été produit sur une période de temps donnée, donc? C’est bien ça?

7172 M. O'BYRNE : Au FMC, oui.

7173 M. CHANTELOIS : Oui, en fait, on regarde ce qui a été produit au Fonds des médias, mais aussi ce qui a été fait ailleurs par les streamers. ET on réalise que, si le contenu n’est pas fait par des entreprises de chez nous, chez nous, il n’y a pas grand‑chose, il n’y a presque rien qui se fait. Alors, je pense que, plus que jamais, c’est important de redonner à nos producteurs et à nos créateurs les moyens pour qu’on puisse continuer de raconter les histoires de chez nous. Sans nos histoires, il n’y a plus vraiment de chez nous.

7174 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Et, d’après vous, est‑ce que c’est au point où on devrait penser à un modèle différent pour la production francophone par rapport aux requis plus généraux dans l’écosystème de radiodiffusion?

7175 M. CHANTELOIS : Tout à fait. On a toujours été en faveur de ça. On comprend très bien que les marchés francophones et anglophones sont complètement différents. On passe beaucoup de temps à y réfléchir. Les systèmes de points qu’on a, par exemple, pour accéder à nos enveloppes budgétaires sont différents en français et en anglais. Les réalités sont différentes. C’est vraiment un très beau monstre à deux têtes, mais on doit vraiment traiter ces choses‑là de façon complètement différentes si on veut être capables de servir les deux marchés adéquatement.

7176 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Puis est‑ce que vous pouvez nous donner des exemples de… Vous parlez notamment d’un système de points. Avez‑vous des exemples un peu plus précis ce qui devrait être différent ou comment les deux marchés pourraient être traités différents?

7177 M. CHANTELOIS : Parfait. Rod.

7178 MR. BUTLER : Sure. No, so, the CMF always has to run this balancing act between having the uniformity and predictability of its programs, but these are distinct markets, and so, the amount of funds available, the specific rules of each program ‑‑ so, obviously in our French regional program, different rules in our English regional program. So, I think, without getting into ‑‑ because there could be a suite of options. I think it’s the underlying principle and recognizing that these are not markets that can be painted exactly with the same brush.

7179 There are many similarities, and that is fantastic, but there are differences too, that we have to respect our approach to EDIA, our approach to regionalism, our approach to OLMC will differ between the francophone market and the anglophone market.

7180 So, I think, if we want, we can do a request for information on the range of options that the CMF offers, and we are happy to work in complement with the CRTC to come up with new options. But the underlying foundation and principle is that yes, you need predictability and a degree of uniformity, but there absolutely has to be a distinction between both of our language markets, in English and in French.

7181 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And would that be under the form more of incentives, or specific requirements?

7182 MR. BUTLER: Again, with the CMF ‑‑ and this is my previous statements with regard to flexibility ‑‑ I think the CMF in this modern world is now evolving, and there are many more incentives at the CMF. We prefer to have carrots, but there do have to be some guardrails and backstops, and non‑negotiables. And so, I think finding that Goldilocks and finding that sweet spot is the business that we’re all in, and we do that obviously in concert with the Government of Canada and their priorities, and in consultation with industry, which is an ongoing ‑‑ it’s in the CMF’s DNA. But absolutely, there has to be a mix of both. You can’t necessarily just have one. Again, you need carrots and sticks.

7183 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Merci. Merci beaucoup. Je vous amène maintenant sur le terrain des contributions comme telles. Certains intervenants ont demandé que les streamers contribuent au FCM et se sont montrés d’accord pour qu’ils puissent déclencher du financement du FCM. Il y a d’autres intervenants qui ont suggéré que la participation d’un diffuseur demeure tout le temps requise pour déclencher du financement du côté du Fonds canadien des médias. Je me demandais, avez‑vous une opinion de votre côté sur la question? Est‑ce que, d’après vous, c’est important de maintenir l’obligation d’être disponible sur une plateforme canadienne pour avoir accès à du financement d’un fonds?

7184 MS. CREIGHTON: I think it’s a really interesting question, and one of the things we did last year, because of the really significant pressure that the broadcast sector is under ‑‑ we’ve noticed it in many ways ‑‑ we decided that what we would try as an experiment or a pilot would be, after much negotiation with the Department of Canadian Heritage, which were supportive, to bring the distributors into the mix. So, the first step of that was that the broadcasters and distributors could work together to meet the license fee threshold at the CMF to get the content made.

7185 So, there was a couple of objectives in that. One was to take pressure off the broadcaster so they wouldn’t have to contribute as much towards the license fee, and the other was, because the distributors are present in the international market, that content could then be exposed worldwide. And it worked not too bad. It wasn’t massive at the beginning, but there were a few projects where there was a strong partnership between the broadcaster and distributor.

7186 Then, later in the fall, we opened it up to just the distributor program, and what we found ‑‑ we’re very hopeful ‑‑ in the beginning of that program, was that 13 percent of the projects financed were in kids content. So, that’s a very heartwarming, I think, example that the distributors are playing in that space much more than the broadcasters, but that that content made by production in Canada would be able to be distributed worldwide.

7187 I’m not sure if I answered your full question, because I lost track. Rod’s going to jump in.

7188 MR. BUTLER: And to further Val’s point, so, one, in this current year of the distributor program at the CMF, we have implemented a 40 percent carve‑out, minimum earmark of money for kids programming, because we realize that it’s more active with these players.

7189 The distributor, in terms of not BDU, but distribution companies ‑‑ it’s interesting, because as the CMF opened up to distributors ‑‑ again, with the permission of the Government of Canada, after a lot of negotiation ‑‑ this aligns with the Federal Tax Credit. So, currently online streamers cannot singularly trigger the Federal Tax Credit; you need a Canadian distribution company as an intermediary. So, for example, a project like North of North has CBC, which can obviously unlock the Tax Credit and they can unlock CMF funds, but Netflix being involved was involved also with a distribution company in Canada.

7190 So, we see distributors playing this vital role in almost a nexus between online streamers and broadcasters. But again, the CMF has shown, especially over the past half‑decade, that we will evolve with the industry. So, if there are new rules of engagement that we have to adapt to, we will do it with our consultation approach with industry; we will have those conversations with government to iterate and evolve. But I think these are just an example of how we’ve already started to transform within the parameters that we currently have.

7191 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And just for my understanding, when you say distributors, you include Canadian online services into this definition?

7192 MR. BUTLER: So, online distributors have some exceptions in other programs at the CMF, but these would be distribution companies that have a business in distributing content in Canada. So, for example, a Cineflix or a Blue Ant has a distribution arm in their business.

7193 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes. Now, I want to continue on the subject of PNI. We talked about children’s programming but I was wondering, is there any other type of programming that would need some support incentives, and if yes, do you have an idea of what could be done to support that kind of production?

7194 MS. CREIGHTON: The other genre that we have looked at for a few years is point of view, one‑off documentary. Series documentary, triggered by broadcasters primarily, is quite healthy in Canada, but point‑of‑view, one‑off doctors are harder to position, harder to gain audiences for, and they are at risk. And yet, they are a very critical, important type of storytelling for the country ‑‑ and bring us world views. So, we have considered that. We’ve looked at some incentives around what to do with point‑of‑view docs.

7195 I’ll let Rod speak specifically to what they are, but those would be the two primary areas of PNI that we identified last year as priorities for the CMF to do something about.

7196 MR. BUTLER: And to add on to Val’s point, obviously PNI exists as a measure and a tool by the CRTC because the marketplace was not making that type of content. And the CMF as a market intervention exists with its four genres ‑‑ of Variety and Performing Arts, and Documentary, and Kids, and Drama  ‑‑ because the marketplace was not licensing that type of content.

7197 So, when we talk about PNI, we recognize that broadcasters in the industry are under tremendous pressure right now, and their needs in terms of making their next quarter revenue projections ‑‑ you know, they are thinking about that. They are thinking about the next breath that they need to take.

7198 The CMF is concerned about ‑‑ like the CRTC, the macro, not the mini and the micro. We are thinking about all of the different balancing of all of these plates, and so, I think when we talk about PNI, again, to reemphasize our point, if the CRTC is going to go down a road of relying on market dynamics alone, it absolutely needs a counterweight in the production funds to support that type of programming.

7199 And again, we would identify the four genres that we support as, but for requirements of CPE up to now, and but for the CMF and other production funds, there would be a dearth of that programming within Canada. And as Val said in terms of documentary, we have our POV program, we have a specific carve‑out in our envelopes for both series and one‑off doc. We’ve recently implemented measures to, you know, obviously add PFCO to certain doc projects, and again, we can take RFIs on the suite of measures that we’ve introduced, to answer the Commission’s questions, but I think our primary purpose here is to say, PNI is absolutely something that, but for the levers and tools that have been implemented to date, the marketplace might not have supported.

7200 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: If I hear you well, basically you are saying even if the CRTC definition is more flexible and that this notion of PNI doesn’t exist anymore, then there would be a guardrail with the Canadian Media Fund at your level to make sure that this kind of production is still supported?

7201 MR. BUTLER: You are absolutely right, but here is the catch. The CMF will be that backstop if the CMF is well supported with robust and predictable contributions. So, I think this is where we kind of tie this red bow back to the beginning.

7202 If the BDU model is declining and the CMF’s resources have gone down millions and millions of dollars over a number years, and the new players that recognize the new way that Canadians are watching TV do not necessarily funnel into the CMF, I think that’s where there is going to be a serious issue with regards to we cannot support the volume of production and all that vulnerability in the system if we do not have the resources to do so.

7203 MR. O'BYRNE: Just to put actually real dollar numbers on that, I will just point you to our intervention, where we are talking about a over $100 million decline to the CMF, for the CMF, rather, because of the BDU decline from 2024‑25 last year as compared to our projections for ’27‑’28. That’s 25 percent of our budget gone.

7204 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Thank you. No more questions.

7205 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.

7206 Let's go to Commissioner Naidoo.

7207 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi there. Thanks so much for being here today.

7208 In your submission, CMF established that it doesn’t believe in additional supports for ILNF. News, of course, for a long time has been seen as being at risk. You’ve heard it at this hearing, people sounding the alarm on that type of programming, and a need for more sufficient funding.

7209 I’m wondering why you don’t support more funding to news through ILNF. And instead of ILNF, do you think that there are any other avenues for funding news that should be considered?

7210 MS. CREIGHTON: I will just start and say you surprised me last hearing with that question on news and would the CMF consider it. So, thank you for the question.

7211 I will turn to Kyle for the answer to the ILNF.

7212 MR. O'BYRNE: Our position is that news is very ‑‑ there have been a number of measures that have been put into place to address the pressures on news. Specifically, we have the 1.5 percent from the base contributions going to the ILNF as part of this process, the proposed elimination of PNI if it does happen. That is more flexibility for broadcasters to be able to take that part of the CPE and put it towards news. There’s also the Online News Act, which was specifically designed for this purpose, to address the issue with news in Canada.

7213 So there have been just a lot of measures already taken to address these issues.

7214 And also, just from the public record so far, we’ve heard Bell and Rogers speak about the possibility of taking their contribution from local expression and redirecting it towards local news. So, there’s potentially another opportunity.

7215 At some point, we just feel like there needs to be somewhat of a line drawn, because this is encroaching ‑‑ well, not encroaching, but just coming out of the share available to PNI programming or entertainment programming generally.

7216 And sorry, I should also mention that in our intervention we speak to a CPE conversion. So in some circumstances, if the CPE would not be applicable to a given undertaking, they would be able to convert that to an additional contribution to funds. And within that additional contribution, we are suggesting that 40 percent, up to 40 percent, could go to the ILNF at the discretion of the contributor.

7217 So there’s another measure, even.

7218 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Sorry, can you just repeat that last part?

7219 MR. O'BYRNE: Our conversion model is basically ‑‑ we recognize that some undertakings, whether online undertakings, any type of broadcasting undertakings, in some situations a CPE might not be workable for a given reason. And in our intervention, we talk about the possibility of converting that CPE to a contribution to funds. And we suggest that it be kind of a fractionary amount, because they don’t have equal value to the contributor. CPE has direct value because it goes to their programming. Contributions to funds is a contribution to a system generally.

7220 So within that converted amount, we suggest a breakdown similar to the one for the base contribution, with some small changes. And one of the changes is for up to 40 percent of that additional contribution to go to various funds. There’s a whole list in there. But one of them would be the ILNF. And that would be to the discretion of the contributor.

7221 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So, you are saying to various funds, including ILNF?

7222 MR. O'BYRNE: Yes. I can walk you through ‑‑

7223 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I think that's okay. I just wanted to get clarification on that just because in your intervention, I was led to believe that you had been sort of steering away from contributing to the ILNF.

7224 MR. O'BYRNE: Specifically with regard to the conversion model, we wanted it to be flexible. We wanted to recognize that CPE is usually ‑‑ it directly benefits the undertaking that is expending it. So, if it was converted, it makes sense for us that there be some balance between base requirements to certain funds and built‑in flexibility as well.

7225 That’s why we are suggesting that up to 40 percent, you can do what you want with it. Put it towards CIPF, put it towards training, towards the ILNF, whatever suits your own business models and your own business interests.

7226 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: So, more flexibility.

7227 MR. O'BYRNE: Exactly.

7228 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. I think if we need anything more on that, we will ask for it at a later date. I think we’ve covered it. Thank you for that.

7229 I wanted to ask one last question. We’ve been talking a lot about funds. You’ve brought that up.

7230 You indicated a desire to expand PNI through contributions to production funds. Yours is a production fund. You’ve heard it before. How do you respond to critics who say that that sounds like a self‑serving proposal, to be advocating for more of it going to funds like yours?

7231 MR. BUTLER: We recognize that that could be seen as a self‑serving proposal, but I think if you pull back, I think the interests of all the intervenors to date obviously are singular. They are looking at their bottom line.

7232 When the CMF looks at its bottom line, it’s not money to the CMF; it’s money through the CMF. We are a conduit and a funnel and a channel. So to rebut that position that this is self‑serving, we are simply saying don’t change that channel. We are serving the industry. We are serving all of the interests and policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act.

7233 So we recognize and respect the argument, but we would put it back to those players, saying our interest is not the singular; it’s the many.

7234 MS. CREIGHTON: It's the Canadian public, ultimately, that benefits from the money that flows through the CMF into production to have that content available to them. They are kind of our shareholder, so to speak.

7235 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you very much. Those are all my questions.

7236 THE CHAIRPERSON: So perhaps before we turn things back over to you for concluding remarks, maybe I could just ask you to respond to some comments that we’ve heard generally about funds. You have been here in the room since day one and have heard some of these comments.

7237 We have heard comments, obviously, about we should be supporting direct investment in content, don’t look at the funds. Rogers made comments about forcing them to go through funds being too burdensome. We heard Open Media talking about some complex funds that lack transparency. and similar comments. So, perhaps I could just put that to you.

7238 Why should monies be contributed to funds instead of directly invested in content?

7239 MS. CREIGHTON: You can do it both ways, but I would say the advantage of contributing to funds is that we position we are neutral. We don’t have the bottom line as a vested interest at the end of the day. We have a broader mandate to serve the Canadian public through the money that comes through us to production. We don’t have a vested interest in the outcome. If a production succeeds greatly, that money will come back to pay for another production.

7240 I think it’s a more neutral approach, simply.

7241 Rod has spoken to sort of the motive as to why people have to take their ‑‑ I mean, there’s no secret about how much pressure the entire Canadian industry is under right now. Everybody is looking for money. Everybody is over‑subscribed, and it becomes a question of not how much money you have, but what you do with the money you’ve got.

7242 I think the neutrality that funds like the CMF and the independent funds offer is simply that. It’s a neutral approach to getting the content made for all, not just a singular investment for a single company and a particular piece of content.

7243 Now that being said, there’s some great models out there where the streamers and Canadian broadcasters and the CMF collectively participate to the financing of projects, and that’s a very successful model as well.

7244 So again, it’s about the neutrality more than it is the vested interest.

7245 Rod, anything to add?

7246 MR. BUTLER: No. I think that independence that the CMF has, and I think as pressure on budgets go down and as competition, especially south of the border, increases, I think the commentary that has been put towards the Commission during this hearing, not to kind of hammer this home too much, shows that when production funds aren’t as resourced as they used to be, everyone starts to then look to their left and right and saying I’m not getting as much as I used to.

7247 And I think that creeps in, and I think people start to really then think about their self‑interest more when the money starts to go down.

7248 We absolutely recognize that the CMF sometimes does not deliver exactly what individual stakeholders want, but I think the CMF over 30 years, through other names, has shown we are balancing, like yourselves, the CRTC. I’m sure you’ve also heard comments about when you get it right and when people don’t think that you get it right. It is balancing the macro, and that is the challenge before us.

7249 I think what the CMF knows it will do, it will continue to come out and talk to the industry, ask about what their needs are and really advocate for the balance of the policy objectives in the Broadcasting Act for the goals of the industry, not just if a broadcaster or a producer is doing as well as they did a few years ago.

7250 MR. O'BYRNE: If I could just add conceptually, to answer your question, CPE and contributions to funds have always worked in complement to one another. That’s been established in decades through the system.

7251 I would also note that funds ultimately help meet public policy goals. That was the entire intent of 138. So, I would just also highlight that. Thanks.

7252 MS. CREIGHTON: I think there is an element, too, of transparency and accountability that is very important. It’s certainly what we are focused on all the time and delivering those results through an accountable and transparent mechanism to both government and the public.

7253 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that, and perhaps we can leave things with you for any closing remarks.

7254 MS. CREIGHTON: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

7255 There is one more thing that we did want to mention, and you spoke to it briefly.

7256 We have heard the concerns about many and some intervenors about the reduction in financial support. We share, deeply share, these concerns.

7257 As Kyle mentioned, the CMF is now operating with $100 million less from the BDU contributions. So, this has resulted in significant reductions to the CMF programs, including the broadcaster envelopes.

7258 These reductions actually threaten the success of Canadian programming and the modernization that the CMF has worked diligently towards over the last four or five years. Today, the financial resources are simply not there.

7259 The CMF is an independent neutral vehicle for the flow of funds to Canadian programming. Funds don’t come to us, as Rod mentioned. They go to development and production for programs for the public. So, to maximize this, we do need stable, robust funds. This is why we strongly urge you to restore the 2 percent in the base contribution.

7260 When you issued the Notice for this hearing, none of us could have imagined the place that we’re in today. What an opportunity we have before us to strengthen the sovereignty through our storytelling. We wish you the best in sorting through the number of suggestions you have received over this hearing, and are happy to support your work in any way that we can.

7261 Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. Keep calm and carry on.

7262 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much, Canada Media Fund.

7263 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will take a ten‑minute break and be back at 10:15.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 10 h 03

‑‑‑ Reprise à 10 h 17

7264 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentation of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Radio‑Canada. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues and you may begin.

Présentation

7265 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Thank you.

7266 Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs and Commissioners.

7267 Before we begin, a little birdie told us that it’s someone’s birthday, so we would like to wish happy birthday to Commissioner Naidoo and we’re honoured that you’re spending your day with us.

7268 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I didn't hear that, sorry.

7269 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Oh!

‑‑‑ Rires

7270 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yes. Thank you so much.

7271 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Good morning, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, and Commissioners. My name is Bev Kirshenblatt, Executive Director of Corporate and Regulatory Affairs at CBC/Radio‑Canada.

7272 Joining me today, to my right, is Barb Williams, Executive Vice President of CBC; and to my left is Dany Meloul, Executive Vice President of Radio‑Canada; and to Dany’s left is Hélène Fearon, Executive Director, Business & Rights for Radio‑Canada; and to Barb’s right is Lisa Clarkson, Executive Director, Business & Rights and Production Sustainability for CBC.

7273 Thank you for the opportunity to appear at this important policy proceeding. As Canada’s national public broadcaster, we are deeply committed to informing, enlightening, entertaining and reflecting Canadians from coast to coast to coast with a wide variety of engaging Canadian programs. We recognize the CRTC's vital role in developing a new regulatory framework that reflects the updated Broadcasting Act and the Policy Direction, and that also addresses our rapidly evolving media landscape.

7274 This morning, we are putting forward six points to ensure that Canadian and Indigenous content can flourish in a global streaming environment.

7275 We have a world‑class broadcasting system that is intended first and foremost to serve Canadians. As a starting point, it’s crucial that the new regulatory framework support the viability and sustainability of domestic players, who, in turn, will continue to invest in a diversity of Canadian content for Canadian audiences. The Broadcasting Act continues to require that the Canadian broadcasting system be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians. Achieving this policy objective will require that any updated definition of a “Canadian program” recognize the key role of Canadian producers, Canadian talent, as well as Canadian broadcasters in creating high‑quality programs for Canadians. We can’t rely on foreign undertakings to tell our stories, to sustain our cultural identity or to deliver our news and information programming.

7276 Dany.

7277 M^me MELOUL : Deuxièmement, comme l’instance en cours porte sur divers enjeux de politique complexes, il faut que le processus visant à définir ce qu’est une « émission canadienne » se fasse séparément de celui servant à déterminer la contribution des entreprises canadiennes à la création et à la présentation des contenus canadiens. Quant au cadre réglementaire qui sera mis en place, nous croyons qu’il devrait obliger les entreprises de radiodiffusion à contribuer de manière importante au système canadien de radiodiffusion afin de renforcer la capacité de ses éléments de créer du contenu canadien et autochtone. L’approche choisie par le Conseil devrait aussi faire en sorte que tous les contributeurs respectent les principes de justesse et d’équité mis de l’avant dans la réglementation. En un mot, pour être reconnue comme canadienne, une émission devra remplir des conditions précises.

7278 Les prochains points que nous aborderons portent sur des aspects clés de la définition « d’émission canadienne ».

7279 Le troisième point ‑‑ qui s’inscrit dans le prolongement du deuxième ‑‑ est la nécessité que les mêmes règles de certification des émissions canadiennes s’appliquent à toutes les entreprises, qu’elles soient canadiennes ou étrangères. L’essentiel est l’uniformité des règles dans l’ensemble du système, pour que l’étiquette « canadienne » veuille dire la même chose qu’il s’agisse d’un service canadien ou étranger.

7280 Quatrièmement, en ce qui concerne le système de points du CRTC, nous croyons que la définition d’émission canadienne doit continuer de reposer sur les « postes clés de création », qui donnent droit à des points s’ils sont occupés par des Canadiens.

7281 Nous aimerions approfondir deux éléments de la proposition qui a été formulée par le CRTC pour moderniser le système de points en le faisant passer de 6 points sur 10 à 9 points sur 15 :

(i) Le Décret ordonne au CRTC de considérer d’appuyer la détention par des Canadiens d’un large éventail de postes de création clés, dans les productions canadiennes. Si à l’issue de cette instance, le CRTC élargit la liste des postes dans l’échelle de points, il lui faudrait s’assurer que chacun continue d’exercer un contrôle important sur les aspects créatifs de la production. Pour cela, nous avons recommandé de maintenir l’obligation qu’au moins 60 pour cent des postes clés de création soient occupés par des Canadiens, dont certains le soient obligatoirement. Plus précisément, CBC/Radio‑Canada préconise que le réalisateur et le scénariste soient aussi Canadiens en raison du degré de contrôle sur les aspects créatifs exercé par ces fonctions. Nous pensons également que les postes de premier ou de deuxième interprète principal d’une production devraient être occupés par des Canadiens.

(ii) En ce qui a trait au poste de « showrunner », nous avons constaté que de nombreux intervenants ne sont pas en faveur de l’ajout de ce poste à un système de points d’application générale, puisqu’on trouve ce poste uniquement dans des productions télévisuelles épisodiques de langue anglaise. Si le CRTC décide malgré tout d’ajouter ce poste à la liste, nous appuyons la position voulant que le poste soit nécessairement occupé par un Canadien en raison de son importance dans tout le contexte de la production. Nous sommes également d’accord avec la position de certains intervenants voulant que le système de points soit adapté aux productions qui n’emploient pas de « showrunner ».

7282 Barb.

7283 MS. WILLIAMS: Fifth, we are opposed to proposals that would give away the ultimate narrative control and/or financial control to non‑Canadians. While we appreciate that some intervenors have tried to find a “middle ground” on Canadian IP ownership and exploitation in this proceeding, we believe that relaxing these rules is a “slippery slope” that does not serve the interests of the Canadian broadcasting system.

7284 The best way to support the viability and sustainability of our system is a definition that requires Canadian creative control over, and the retention of meaningful economic benefits derived from television productions by Canadians.

7285 The simplest and most straightforward approach is one that would require that a “Canadian program” be created by Canadians occupying certain mandatory key roles, owned by Canadians, and meaningfully exploited by Canadians. This approach would encourage the sustainability and viability of Canadian companies ‑‑ companies that have a vested interest in reinvesting in the Canadian broadcasting system. This approach would also be consistent with the Policy Direction, which instructs the CRTC to consider the need to support Canadian ownership of intellectual property when developing a new definition of a Canadian program and to consider whether its determination of what constitutes a Canadian program actually complements other Canadian content policies that are applicable to the Canadian broadcasting system.

7286 In fact, this approach is already in place today and has enabled CBC/Radio‑Canada to collaborate with independent producers, broadcasters and global streamers on shows that have achieved audience success both domestically and abroad. We would be pleased to elaborate on our experience.

7287 Six, numerous intervenors have raised concerns about whether the CRTC will continue to recognize CAVCO certified productions if the CRTC definition of a Canadian program is revamped. We agree with parties who want CAVCO certified productions to continue to be recognized for CRTC purposes. This would be consistent with the Policy Direction, which requires the CRTC to consider whether its determination of what constitutes a Canadian program complements other Canadian content policies that are applicable to the Canadian broadcasting system.

7288 With that, we appreciate the opportunity to appear at this important policy proceeding and we welcome your questions. Thank you.

7289 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Merci à CBC/Radio‑Canada pour vos soumissions. Merci beaucoup pour votre présentation ce matin.

7290 Alors, moi, je vais commencer avec les questions. Puis après, je vais céder la parole à mes collègues.

7291 So, as a starting point, obviously the CBC is a significant supporter of Canadian productions. We’ve seen you partner with others. You talked about that. We heard the CMF this morning and many others talk about North of North as an example of your collaboration with APTN and Netflix. The question is: If we incent the sharing of IP, would more productions like North of North happen?

7292 Barb, would you like to start?

7293 MS. WILLIAMS: Yes, sure. I will start and, Lisa, you may want to add.

7294 I think the simple answer to your question is no. I think the opportunity is for Canadians to have such great ideas and such great creative that these other potential partners want to be a part of it and will come and participate and support the content that’s made. We have a long history of many, many partnerships, I think, Lisa, 38 programs you listed out that have been done with foreign partners of one type or another over the years and in all of those we’ve still maintained 100 percent IP. So, I don’t think that’s the best way to incent partners. I think great projects that they want to be a part of is the best way to bring in those other partners with their dollars and their other supports.

7295 Lisa, I don’t know if there’s anything you want to add.

7296 MS. CLARKSON: Just a couple of things to add to what Barb was saying.

7297 The fact is that the foreign partners have a lot of different ways and a lot of different benefits currently under the system that we have. Barb mentioned 38 co‑productions or partnerships that we have that do involve foreign financiers. That’s 38 just in drama in the last five years. The fact is that in Canada for CBC ‑‑ and I’ve been responsible for business over the last 20 years ‑‑ so my vantage point is a very practical one.

7298 Over the last 20 years there have been lots of foreign financing that has supplemented and financed particularly our drama, also our kids programming, and those are all 100 percent Canadian‑owned. Those also tap into and are supported by our regulated financing system tax credits in CMF. And so, to take away the ownership from the Canadian producer when the system is already working and has some significant inducements/benefits for the foreign partner, whether or not it’s rights or getting a piece of content, that instead of paying 100 percent, they’re paying 20 to 50 percent, those are massive inducements already. So, removing that leverage from the Canadian producer is unwise and unnecessary.

7299 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that. Perhaps just before moving on, because it’s tied to this discussions, you had said this morning in your fifth point I believe, you were talking about collaborations, you said you would be pleased to elaborate on your experiences. Is there something else that you would like to add at this point?

7300 MS. WILLIAMS: I think there just is an opportunity to drill down into, you know, a more specific example if you like.

7301 We’ve been quite delighted by the prominence that North of North has taken at this proceeding. I can’t remember a proceeding where a single show was mentioned by so many. It’s a show we’re enormously proud of, that has done very well domestically and abroad, and it’s a show that clearly was done with the partnership, as you noted, of APTN and Netflix. And it’s just a great example of how 100 percent owned, you know, IP and creative control by not only Canadian producers but by a unique set of creators and crew in the North that did something spectacular that had never been done before, and Netflix was an important and critical piece of the financing, but we didn’t need to compromise being Canadian‑owned in every way, shape and form in order to have them be a partner.

7302 Lisa can help and add one more thing.

7303 MS. CLARKSON: Just one more thing about the way that we partner with foreign financiers that’s important. It’s true of North of North but also those other series that I spoke of, is that CBC as the broadcaster puts so much creative and financial time and risk into developing a show like that. In that particular case, it was in development for over two years before Netflix came on the scene, and so that recognizes the creative benefit that the foreign partners get. They get a fully polished script. They don’t have to take the risk for that.

7304 And for the public broadcaster and other broadcasters, we’ve taken risks, financial and creative, on all sorts of other properties that never go anywhere. Only the best of the best are created. So, in terms of CBC’s contribution, what we bring, what the system brings to a foreigner, that creative benefit is also part of it.

7305 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you so much.

7306 Alors, comme vous le savez, des intervenants comme Télé‑Québec, par exemple, proposent d’adopter une définition différente pour le contenu canadien en français et le contenu en anglais. Est‑ce que c’est nécessaire ou pensez‑vous qu’il existe d’autres outils pour répondre aux besoins uniques de chaque marché?

7307 M^me MELOUL : Merci pour la question. Je serais mal vue de dire que le français n’est pas important ou que ce n’est pas un élément culturel important, mais on pense sincèrement que la meilleure façon pour avoir une définition claire de ce qu’est un contenu canadien, un programme canadien, c’est le système de pointage et qu’il y a d’autres outils réglementaires pour assurer qu’on ait de la programmation avec des éléments culturels importants qui sont soutenus à travers le système.

7308 LA PRÉSIDENTE : D'accord. Merci.

7309 You argue for stronger Canadian creative control by tightening the current roles, like suggesting both the director and the writer should be Canadian instead of just one or the other. So, how would you respond to other intervenors like the MPAC, for example, who have said that flexibility and incentive‑based approaches are better suited to meeting the public policy outcomes that we at the CRTC have set for this proceeding?

7310 MS. WILLIAMS: I can start and, Dany, you might want to add.

7311 I think it comes back to the first principle of what the role and responsibility of the CRTC is and then the shared responsibility that we have as a participant in the system. We are all here to protect, to nurture, to support, to care about what is Canadian, and there are so many, many wonderful opportunities around the world for lots and lots of other content, but here in Canada in this moment in particular what we are really driven by is the need to support a creative community that can feel it has the opportunity to put its best foot forward and build great content that then they can exploit, that they can own, that they can build a business around, and we’re here to help them do that, very, very much so.

7312 But what we are reluctant to accept is that somehow we need a foreign entity to help us do that. We’re very, very capable of doing this on our own and making great, great projects that over the years, those 38 projects Lisa referred to, they’ve all come willingly to the table and been a part of making great content here. And we welcome them and we respect entirely that the streamers have entered into our country in a meaningful way. And they are here to stay, I don’t think there’s any doubt about that, and our audiences in Canada love them. And they have benefited enormously from being here in this country and we look for opportunities through the system to be sure that they pay back and that they contribute and be a partner in a meaningful way. And that’s not about giving away some of our Canadian control, creative, financial or otherwise. It’s about maintaining and holding onto what we have and finding ways for them to be a meaningful participant.

7313 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you for that. I have one last question, and it relates to data. So, as you know, we require Canadian broadcasters to publish certain information on revenues and expenses. And obviously, that helps paint a picture of the overall health of the Canadian broadcasting and production sectors. So given that benefit, what do you think of MPAC's argument that revenue and expenditure data should remain confidential?

7314 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: So, the challenge with that approach is the Commission's policy objective with respect to disclosure of data ‑‑ and the Commission already discloses, publicly discloses, data for traditional broadcasters ‑‑ is to allow parties to participate in public process and contribute. So I think the balance is finding out or determining what data needs to be kept confidential versus what data should be publicly disclosed.

7315 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much.

7316 Alors, merci beaucoup. Moi, je vais céder la parole à la vice‑présidente, merci.

7317 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Merci, Madame la Présidente. Merci. Bienvenue à cette audience. Ça nous fait plaisir de vous avoir. J’ai trois questions et je vais commencer par celle qui a fait beaucoup couler d’encre depuis le début de cette audience, c’est‑à‑dire la programmation pour enfants, la programmation à risque de façon plus générale et en particulier la programmation pour enfants.

7318 Comme vous le savez, les enfants consomment de plus en plus de contenu en ligne. Et Rogers nous disait vendredi que ce n’est vraiment pas un problème d’offre, qu’il y a énormément de contenu disponible, que c’est davantage peut‑être une question de découvrabilité. Et donc augmenter le financement pour le contenu pour enfants via des contributions ou via des dépenses obligatoires, ce n’est pas la solution, qu’il vaudrait mieux focaliser sur comment s’adapter aux nouvelles habitudes de consommation des enfants.

7319 Certains ont même suggéré que les émissions d’intérêt national, qui couvrent entre autres la programmation pour enfants, devraient relever exclusivement de la responsabilité du diffuseur public.

7320 J’aurais aimé avoir vos réactions là‑dessus. Est‑ce que, effectivement, en matière de contenu pour enfants, c’est juste une question de découvrabilité? Évidemment, Radio‑Canada a été longtemps le chef de file. On a tous grandi avec la programmation pour enfants de la SRC. Est‑ce que vous croyez que la SRC a un rôle particulier par rapport à la programmation à risque au sens large, mais, de façon un peu plus particulière, programmation pour enfants?

7321 M^me MELOUL : Merci pour la question. Je vous dirais que vous avez raison, on est tous d’une génération, que ce soit Bobino, Passe‑Partout, et cætera, on se rappelle tous de notre enfance. Et donc, pour moi, ça dénote à quel point c’est important, cette programmation qui est au début de la vie d’un être humain canadien pour continuer à apprécier la culture et le contenu canadien tout au long de sa vie.

7322 De dire qu’il y a trop de contenus et que ce n’est pas ça la question et, donc, ce n’est pas une question de financement, pour moi, c’est un petit peu comme abdiquer et lâcher prise et dire que : « Bon, bien, on n’a pas réussi, ils sont ailleurs. On ne va pas continuer. »

7323 C’est vrai que Radio‑Canada continue à faire énormément de contenus pour jeunesse et va continuer à le faire. On n’est pas seuls. Aujourd’hui, il y a aussi les diffuseurs provinciaux de l’Ontario et du Québec bien sûr qui sont avec nous.

7324 Et, pour la découvrabilité, on a plusieurs tactiques. J’aimerais vous en parler un petit peu. Une chose qu’on fait, on a beaucoup de coproduction, que ce soit avec la CBC, que ce soit avec Knowledge, APTN. Dans quelque temps, vous allez entendre parler d’une série autochtone niche qui vient d’un livre et que nous avons faite avec APTN. Et bien sûr, avec Télé‑Québec et avec TFO aussi.

7325 La raison de l’importance ce ces coproductions, de ces partenariats, c’est : d’une part, oui, ça nous donne un petit peu plus de moyens pour avoir une production avec un petit peu plus de force de frappe. Mais aussi, ça permet d’avoir une déclinaison sur plusieurs fenêtres. Les nôtres, à la télévision et sur les plateformes, et les leurs.

7326 Chez Radio‑Canada, on continue à avoir de la programmation jeunesse tous les jours à la télévision, sur TOU.TV et des chaînes tierces aussi, comme notre chaîne YouTube et TikTok. Donc, on essaie d’aller partout.

7327 Mais la découvrabilité va plus loin que ça. On essaie de plus en plus, quand on choisit notre programmation, de voir si ça vient par exemple d’une série qui a été populaire. Là, ça ajoute une couche au niveau de l’intérêt. On essaie aussi de voir s’il y a lieu d’avoir un balado qui accompagne. Et on le retrouverait sur nos plateformes. Donc, c’est un mariage. Et la marque devient un petit peu plus puissante.

7328 Je vous dirais aussi que nous avons énormément d’opérations de terrain. Et, pour moi, ces opérations terrain sont des opérations extrêmement importantes parce que c’est des activations où les gens, les jeunes pour une première fois ont une appréciation affective des contenus canadiens, de l’information, parce que nous avons MAJ et aussi du contenu éducatif parce que nous avons Curio.

7329 Alors, vous pouvez vous imaginer qu’on est dans les salons des livres, qu’on est dans les bibliothèques, qu’on a des jeunes qui viennent et qui touchent aux contenus dans l’ensemble de nos installations à travers le pays.

7330 Alors, quand je décris tout ça, moi, je vous dirais que le financement est encore fort important.

7331 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Quand je vous écoute, ce que vous me décrivez semble un… enfin, ce que vous semblez peindre, c’est un tableau qui m’a l’air assez positif. Or, les producteurs indépendants de contenu pour enfants nous ont répété à maintes et maintes reprises que c’est vraiment un secteur qui est en crise. Alors, j’ai de la difficulté à saisir un peu votre perspective par rapport à la santé de ce domaine et surtout si vous pensez que Radio‑Canada a un rôle particulier à jouer.

7332 M^me MELOUL : Radio‑Canada a un rôle particulier à jouer. On va continuer à le faire. Les producteurs ont raison d’être inquiets. Et c’est pour ça que je ne suis pas d’accord avec la prémisse de Rogers, qui semblait dire qu’il y en a assez. Au contraire, il faut continuer à financer et à aider ce secteur.

7333 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Merci.

7334 Maybe I will move on to IP, and we touched a little bit about IP earlier. So in your submission and in your response to some of the questions coming from the Chair, it's quite clear that the CBC is against any foreign financial creative control of Canadian productions. And you mentioned when asked by the Chair that sharing IP is not the magic solution. Maybe co‑pros agreements is a better piece to follow, you know, is a better focus. To my knowledge, we don't have a co‑pro agreement with the US, which is a major player when we're talking about foreign online streamers.

7335 So I'm still trying to figure out exactly whether North of North is an interesting model, and particularly when we're thinking about licensing windows, which is an important part of IP. And so I'm interested in hearing your views, perhaps in digging a little bit deeper on that particular aspect of the IP conversation.

7336 You know, the MPAC was very clear that they thought that IP should be a bonus point. And of course they called for flexibility.

7337 And then CMPA and AQPM came back with an interesting model, right, so trying to cater to both positions. And they put forward a two‑model approach, one that really focuses on strict IP control in Canada, and another one maybe a little more flexible while still retaining ‑‑ with still Canadians would still be retaining a majority, but still more acceptable, perhaps more adapted to co‑pros and partnerships.

7338 So I would be interested in hearing your views on what was put forward by CMPA and AQPM, and about licensing windows as well.

7339 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: So I will just start off and then hand it to my colleagues. The model that was put forward by CMPA Friday afternoon, we're still digesting it. So we'd like the opportunity to provide something more detailed.

7340 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Maybe you can ‑‑

7341 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Oh, I'm sorry. So CMPA's model that they proposed on Friday afternoon, we're still digesting it, so I think we'd like the opportunity to provide something more fulsome in the reply.

7342 You've asked about financing, co‑productions, and co‑ventures, I think, in your question. So why don't I hand that over ‑‑ are you looking at it from an English‑language perspective or French‑language ‑‑

7343 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Both.

7344 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Okay.

7345 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: With a particular interest in licensing windows ‑‑

7346 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Licensing windows.

7347 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ which is something that was put forward as something that we need to keep in mind. It's part of the IP package and perhaps we don't spend enough time thinking about what ‑‑

7348 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Licensing.

7349 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: The role it plays in international partnerships.

7350 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: So why don't we start with the CBC and then move over to Radio‑Canada.

7351 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

7352 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Thank you.

7353 MS. WILLIAMS: I will start here, but Lisa, you may want to add. I think where we're coming from on this is understanding that the Canadian independent producer with a great project that needs some foreign financing ‑‑ and in the CBC side of the house, if you will, all of our scripted programs and major unscripted programs also, actually, and some documentaries, all require some foreign funding. We don't fully finance any of those projects at the CBC. So we're very familiar with finding foreign partners to support the content.

7354 Our view into this is that the independent producer should go into those negotiations with as strong a position as possible because they are going to face a formidable partner that they're going to negotiate everything from the windowing rights to all the other pieces of the terms of the agreement. So supporting the independent producer to at least be able to go in with 100 per cent ownership of their project gives them as firm a stand as they can have to then negotiate all those other terms.

7355 We believe that a window in Canada, and a substantial window and an exclusive substantial window, ought always to be a part of the outcome of these negotiations. It's very hard to get. And we don't actually always accomplish all the pieces of that. We do manage an exclusive window, I think, always. But how long it is has become an ever‑shrinking conversation.

7356 So what we're trying to ensure here is, in our effort to be sure that great Canadian content is well funded and well distributed and well enjoyed in Canada and around the world that we don't start compromising too early and start to give away too much of the store here, but rather find ways to hold firm.

7357 And when we have great projects, others will want to be involved, and then good negotiations can come. But we want to stand behind that independent producer and give them every piece of leverage they've got going into the conversation. And we believe strong ownership of both IP and financial control and creative control, you need all of those pieces in place and 100 per cent IP ownership by a Canadian is a strong way to start.

7358 I don't know, Lisa, if there's anything you wanted to add.

7359 MS. CLARKSON: I just want to unpack something that Barb said just a little bit from a practical perspective because the business world on the entertainment side is very complicated. So just practically, the first piece is ownership, who owns it. As we've said, we have so many examples, not just with Netflix, with MBCU, with HBO Max, with scores ‑‑ ITV ‑‑ scores of foreign financiers. But the first piece, the independent producer owns the project.

7360 And then what happens is, in the chronology, comes to CBC. We develop it for years, take that creative and financial risk I talked about, and then we actually also fund their ‑‑ often ‑‑ their foreign financing packages to help them go around and sell the show so that we get that foreign finance. So we're in.

7361 And then the independent producer goes around and starts having discussions with foreign financiers. That's when the conversation happens about what money are they going to put in and what are they going to get in exchange. So I think mentally one has to separate the hundred per cent IP ownership, which is the starting point and unlocks a number of the financial aspects in our system, you have to separate that from what are the rights that those foreign financiers ultimately get. And they are significant.

7362 So, you know, I'm not going to talk about a specific show, but generally ‑‑ the patterns are very similar ‑‑ is that then the foreign financier says, I want the rights around the world. And we know in Netflix's case that they're in every country except for two. I mean, imagine. Imagine the financial clout that that business model brings? I mean, honestly, sometimes I feel like in the Canadian system, as we try and support, we're in a fight with a paddle against sort of a nuclear power.

7363 But so then the discussion happens, the negotiation around the rights. They get substantial rights. They can then monetize that right around the world. They get that window outside of Canada and many of the foreign financiers do not insist on a window in Canada. As Barb alluded to, increasingly, we are feeling under immense pressure to share the Canadian window, even though we've paid a significant amount for that. And then we have a foreign streamer who is showing our developed show in our territory. And that does make it very challenging for us.

7364 So that is just a bit of extra detail in terms of unpacking the various pieces.

7365 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: No, it's very useful. I know perhaps your colleagues wanted to jump in, but can I just, while we're on that topic, it's interesting because I'm trying to figure out to what extent, you know, what we're looking for in the definition either creates an obstacle or facilitates that kind of negotiating of rights down the road. So if the definition requires, you know, complete ownership by Canadians of the IP, what does that do for that second tranche of the negotiation with the foreign streamer? What's the relationship in between ‑‑

7366 MS. CLARKSON: Nothing.

7367 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE:  ‑‑ or is there a relationship?

7368 MS. CLARKSON: Nothing. Nothing.

7369 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: All right.

7370 MS. CLARKSON: Like they are already doing it, so you know, that is why our position is that you need for a piece of ‑‑ you know, we're talking about Canadian content. So the starting place for Canadian content must be that financially Canadians start off and control it a hundred per cent financially and that there's key creative control as well.

7371 And I would say, just in terms of the role of the Canadian producer, the fact is, is that the Canadian producer who has put the show together, it's not just what you have on paper, what your definitions are. There are a million decisions, creative and financial, that have to be made day‑in, day‑out. And by giving the Canadian producer the leverage ‑‑ and the Canadian system for Canadians ‑‑ giving them the leverage around those Canadian positions and around the ownership helps them as they have those myriad of discussions.

7372 I mean, I will say, there is even in the 10 out of 10, 9 out of 10 system, there is huge flexibility. We developed/supported Blackberry, and one of the key positions in that show, actors, was from the US. CMF actually does permit 9 out of 10 productions in cases.

7373 And there's the co‑venture system, which ‑‑ it hasn't been oft‑used, but we've certainly done some co‑ventures with the United States. That's another option if they're not getting sufficient benefits out of the Canadian system, which I would say they're absolutely immense for foreign partners. There's the co‑venture system; there's the treaty system.

7374 And I think just one other thing about the co‑venture system, I heard some of the intervenors talk about the frailties of the treaty system ‑‑ we've got the most treaties in the entire world ‑‑ but that they have tended to skew towards Europe, et cetera. The fact is, is that the co‑venture system as well can address some of the countries with whom we don't have a treaty ‑‑ Jamaica, I understand that there's discussions going on, some of the countries in Africa ‑‑ to allow those other countries a way in.

7375 And then I will just say there's also service production. The fact is that the foreign financiers do $4 billion to $6 billion of service production here and get an 18 per cent tax credit in exchange for that. In that case, they own a hundred per cent.

7376 So watering down ‑‑ like they can do service production or they can do Canadian production or co‑venture. That's enough options for foreigners to entice them to operate here. We know that because our experience is they're here and they're thriving.

7377 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you.

7378 You wanted to jump in. Merci.

7379 M^me MELOUL : Bien, juste rapidement. On a entendu le Fonds des médias ce matin dire à quel point, dans le marché de langue française, les diffuseurs et les producteurs, on est plus que des partenaires, on est des collaborateurs. Donc, c’est certain que tout ce que les producteurs pensent serait utile pour les aider, on est à l’écoute.

7380 Mais je vous dirais : faisons attention que l’ajout de flexibilité n’est pas toujours vers une simplicité. Ça peut devenir encore plus complexe. Vous avez entendu plusieurs vous dire déjà qu’il n’y a pas ce modèle dans le marché de langue française, c’est‑à‑dire, les plateformes ne sont pas encore en train de faire de la collaboration avec des producteurs d’ici.

7381 Mais, ce que je peux vous dire, dans le comportement réel des producteurs francophones et dans le marché de langue française, c’est que, effectivement, ils détiennent ces droits‑là et ils les détiennent comme la prunelle de leurs yeux. On les voit vouloir développer des formats et la vente à l’international, ce qui commence à vraiment avoir un essor pour eux.

7382 Et, dans tous les cas, ils détiennent à 100 pour cent. Donc, je ne sais pas tout à fait qu’est‑ce que cette flexibilité viendrait leur donner pour le marché, de la façon que ça fonctionne pour le moment.

7383 Est‑ce que tu as quelque chose?

7384 M^me FEARON : J’ajouterais simplement que le marché est très, très différent. Le marché francophone se distingue par la présence de plusieurs plateformes de langue française qui ont des taux de pénétration quand même assez importants et mettent en valeur le contenu d’ici également. Ça fait que, dans ce contexte‑là, on pense que les collaborations sont possibles, évidemment. Puis une présence sur les plateformes de diffusion sont intéressantes.

7385 Mais on s’interroge sur comment ça se matérialiserait concrètement dans le contexte concurrentiel du marché.

7386 VICE‑PRÉSIDENTE THÉBERGE : Je vous remercie. C’est tout, Madame.

7387 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Alors, on va continuer avec la conseillère Paquette.

7388 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bonjour. Je vais continuer sur cette lignée de questions, que je trouve extrêmement intéressante. Donc, je comprends puis votre point est très, très clair, vous dites que la flexibilité au niveau de la définition ne changerait pas grand‑chose à la capacité de faire des partenariats. Donc, je comprends votre point.

7389 En même temps, vous recommandez dans votre mémoire que le Conseil devrait cesser de certifier les coproductions réalisées avec des pays étrangers qui ne sont pas régis par des traités en vigueur avec le Canada, dont, par exemple, les États‑Unis. Alors, en fait, ma question, c’est : quelle place est‑ce que ça laisse à l’investissement des streamers? Et vous allez l’air de dire que, peu importe le modèle, ils vont venir à la table. Je comprends qu’il y a le volet « Droits internationaux » qui est intéressant pour eux, mais est‑ce qu’il y a d’autres choses qui les amènent aussi spontanément à la table? Et ça devrait être quoi le modèle de contribution des streamers dans notre cadre réglementaire?

7390 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: There's two parts to the question. I'll start off with the co‑venture part, and just say that our thinking has evolved. We've read the other parties' written interventions, and we've heard other parties' appearances. I'll let Lisa explain, you know, why we thought ‑‑ why our position was what it was, and why it has evolved, but the headline is that it has evolved.

7391 Would you like a bit more information, or ...?

7392 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Of course.

7393 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Okay. Lisa?

7394 MS. CLARKSON: It sort of touches on those options for foreign investors that I was mentioning. In the case of the co‑venture, as Bev lays out, we were initially of the view to agree with the Commission that if it's not being used very often, then it just adds administrative complexity, a lack of simplicity. And so we were inclined to agree that if it's not being used very often, then, sure, get rid of it.

7395 In our case, CBC/Radio‑Canada, we have used co‑ventures on some of our projects with independent producers. That has been in a number of children's program, including with PBS in the US. That has been with a couple of dramas. Radio‑Canada really hasn't used it because, perhaps predictably, it tends to be a way for US companies to partner with Canadian companies, and the demand or opportunity with Radio‑Canada is just simply less.

7396 After hearing other submissions, and after understanding that some are calling for enhanced flexibility ‑‑ which I'll say that I don't think actually is necessary for US partners ‑‑ but if that is the case, then the co‑venture model does provide another route for flexibility while still maintaining specified and predictable creative and financial controls. And for those countries that are currently outside of the system the REMC and the Black Screen Office mentioned, in particular Jamaica and Africa, that it does give them an opportunity to participate.

7397 So for those reasons, we're content that the co‑venture model stand.

7398 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And do I understand that you would prefer a more flexible co‑venture model than a more flexible definition or a compromise on copyright?

7399 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: So I would restate it and say that the flexibility that's being proposed with respect to IP, our position is, isn't necessary. And that the existing co‑venture model provides flexibility. Is that ...?

7400 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. But I understand because from the explanation that you're open that co‑venture co‑production be certified even with the United States? Is that correct?

7401 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Correct. So it's a change from our submission in January ‑‑

7402 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah, yeah, mm‑hmm.

7403 MS. CLARKSON: I guess to add one thing, the co‑venture model specifies a percentage of equitable participation for Canadians at 50 per cent.

7404 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah.

7405 MS. CLARKSON: And so when we were having the discussion earlier about ownership being the starting point, then you go on to negotiate those back‑end rights, in effect, the co‑venture model sort of jumps over that and goes right to what Canadians are going to get. And for that reason, because it's specified at 50 per cent, we're comfortable that the co‑venture model can stand, even though it's not ‑‑ it doesn't specify the ownership piece.

7406 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And just to come back to the second part of my question, what form should the contribution of the streamers take in our ecosystem?

7407 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: So we don't have a concrete proposal like others about how much in percentages. But what we think is that the obligations of Canadian broadcasting services and online services should be equitable. And from our perspective, what that means is while the size of the contribution, the overall size should be comparable, the manner in which undertakings make that contribution may be different.

7408 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. But you don't have any recommendations in terms of is it more contribution, as an example, to a fund, or CPE obligations ‑‑

7409 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Yes, we do. So with respect to ‑‑ yes, so we think it would be more appropriate for those contributions or a significant amount of those contributions to be directed to third‑party funds.

7410 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE : O.K. Pour revenir aux droits d’auteur, je lisais dans votre intervention, vous dites que le CRTC doit faire en sorte que les Canadiens, y compris les diffuseurs canadiens, puissent conserver le droit de propriété intellectuelle sur les productions commandées.

7411 En ce moment, le système fait en sorte que les diffuseurs peuvent plus ou moins détenir la propriété intellectuelle. Pouvez‑vous nous parler un peu plus de comment se négocie la propriété intellectuelle entre un diffuseur traditionnel et un producteur? Et est‑ce qu’il y a un décalage par rapport à ce qui se négocie avec des plateformes en ligne, à votre connaissance?

7412 M^me MELOUL : Bien, effectivement, en ce qui concerne les plateformes étrangères, on l’a déjà dit, il y a très peu d’expérience dans le marché de langue française. Non, ce qu’on essayait de dire vraiment, c’est qu’il ne faut pas créer un cadre réglementaire qui viserait la production canadienne et la distribution par les diffuseurs étrangers et faire abstraction du rôle primordial que jouent les diffuseurs canadiens. On est beaucoup plus des curateurs de contenu. Je vais parler du marché de langue française. C’est nos plateformes où les gens viennent écouter le contenu. C’est là où la découvrabilité se fait de façon plus facile, plus accessible.

7413 Il faut que le cadre réglementaire assure que nous continuons à avoir une production qui est forte et en croissance et que les diffuseurs, tous les diffuseurs puissent être aussi en santé.

7414 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Très bien. Puis peut‑être une toute dernière question. Dans votre mémoire aussi, vous mentionnez la différence qu’il existe en ce moment, par exemple, entre la certification au niveau du CRTC et la certification pour fins de taxes ou de financement. Vous mentionnez même, vous dites : « Il serait peu pratique d’harmoniser entièrement les différents niveaux de certification. » Vous suggérez même que la définition du CRTC pourrait être plus large, mais plus restrictive à d’autres niveaux.

7415 Quel serait selon vous l’intérêt d’un tel système? Et je pose la question parce qu’il y a beaucoup, beaucoup d’intervenants qui étaient plus en faveur d’une harmonisation générale par rapport à un système multiniveaux.

7416 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: So I think the question had a couple of elements, because I think we were at one point trying to address the point system, and at another place trying to address the IP and the exploitation part. So with respect to the IP and exploitation, that was where we were saying it definitely should be harmonized with the CRTC ‑‑

7417 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yeah, you're right, mm‑hmm.

7418 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: With respect to the points, while we're open to considering the Commission's proposals to expand the points and ‑‑ you know, what occurred to us, though, was that this is a bit different. But the harmonization point was with respect to the IP and the exploitation.

7419 I know that my colleague ‑‑

7420 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I guess the question is, is there an interest of having a different point system at the level of the CRTC definition compared to tax credits or funding? No? Okay.

7421 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: No.

7422 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you. No more questions.

7423 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much.

7424 We have a lot of questions. I will turn things over to Vice‑Chair Scott.

7425 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: My question's a really broad conceptual one, really having to do with where the CBC fits in kind of the policy mix, because we've got a whole bunch of policy objectives that we need to advance, many of which having to do with, you know, supporting different genres, a diversity of voices, some of which are more addressable by market forces than others. And where intervention is necessary, we want to be really effective and efficient. As a public broadcaster, you're seized with some of those same policy objectives.

7426 So the first part of my question is, one, should we conceive of you as any other broadcaster, responsive to financial incentives in the same way, or do you respond differently by virtue of your mandate? And then part two is are there policy objectives where the CRTC can maybe step back a bit or be a little less concerned because the CBC has stepped forward and is taking on an oversized role, whether that's a specific genre or a specific voice that you're advancing more than the market might, so maybe we don't need to worry as much as we otherwise would?

7427 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Why don't I start, and I know my colleagues will want to jump in.

7428 So the first part of your question is should the CRTC treat CBC/Radio‑Canada or the national public broadcaster the same way that it treats other broadcasters, and I guess you're saying private broadcasters. And the short answer is you haven't in the past. And we recognize that we have an important role to play in the system and a broad mandate. So we're not here suggesting anything to change. This is not our hearing, our licence‑renewal hearing or looking to change the system for us.

7429 The second part of your question was about incentives. And as part of the regulatory framework that the Commission has imposed on CBC/Radio‑Canada, there are some sticks. There are some very clear things that you want us to do that are consistent with our mandate. There are also some carrots that you put in there. I'm thinking, for example, there's a women intersectionality credit. So you have used different tools with us, and we think that continues to be appropriate.

7430 Now, the second part of your question is more of the mandate and how we fit in the system if there's ‑‑ I don't want to use the give‑and‑take, because you were using that in the context of the Canadian program ‑‑ but that's where I think that my colleagues would like to jump in. Yeah.

7431 MS. WILLIAMS: I mean, sure, we all have lots to say about the role of the CBC. We could go on for a long time up here. We care passionately about it. Just to add to all those thoughts that Bev shared, we are special. We are unique. And yet, we're part of the whole thing. So we straddle both of those points of view, I think. We have a very broad mandate to try to serve everyone everywhere in a multitude of languages on an increasing number of platforms, conquer all of the at‑risk programming while deliver huge audiences. I mean, it is a fantastical mandate in a lot of ways, and one that we lean into willingly all the time.

7432 I think we feel ‑‑ I think we feel ‑‑ that we should not be seen as a gap‑filler for the problems of the other broadcasters, that where market forces don't come easily to their decisions about programming, it shouldn't just be assumed not to worry about it, the CBC will do it. The CBC will do some of it. We are obliged to do some of it by licence condition, and we want to do it for that broader mandate purpose. But we know we cannot be the only ones serving up some of these at‑risk genres.

7433 So, we think it is important for diversity of voices that everyone participate, and it’s important that it’s understood that there’s going to be lots of different creative ideas and distribution mechanisms and opportunities for audiences to discover content if everyone is leaning into the unique opportunities of the Canadian system.

7434 We believe that everybody needs to participate, and everybody should have a responsibility. We acknowledge that ours is a little bit different, and you have acknowledged that with the licence conditions that are unique to us that no one else quite leans into the same way.

7435 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Those were wonderfully helpful answers. Thank you.

7436 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Let's go to Commissioner Naidoo.

7437 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thank you so much.

7438 You recited, as you may have been watching the hearing, you recited by Digital First Canada’s presentation as having success on YouTube to drive engagement on CBC Gem. So, I’m wondering if you can talk a little bit about this initiative and how that improves discoverability, how can the CRTC encourage user‑driven platforms to drive discoverability and engagement on Canadian content, in your view.

7439 MS. WILLIAMS: At CBC we have developed very specifically a YouTube strategy, which is what was referenced, and it is a strategy that applies to third party distribution in many ways. But specifically to YouTube, I think where we come from on this is we need to understand ‑‑ and I know all of my colleagues in the industry understand ‑‑ you’ve gotta go where the audiences are. We can’t pretend anymore that we can make them come to us. We have to go to them.

7440 And YouTube is the biggest platform in the world and the most significant sized platform for an audience that we are determined to make a part of our total audience complement at CBC, which is that sort of, you know, 30 and 40‑year‑olds that are different from the kids audience that we specifically to and different from an audience that has maybe been loyal with us for generations but an audience that we need to ensure discover CBC content.

7441 So in going there, it was first deliberate because we knew we had to be there, because that’s where our audience was.

7442 But secondly, what became critically important and what we leaned into in a significant way was being sure that every piece of CBC content that showed up on YouTube was very purposefully, deliberately and in a matched way branded CBC.

7443 So we went to great effort, actually, led by our Marketing team, to be sure that every piece of content that went up there on the various CBC YouTube channels all looks the same in terms of its CBC branding. You know where it’s coming from. You know what division it belonged to. You know what to expect from it. And with that, really hoped that we could help all of those audiences on YouTube to say hey, this is a great piece of content and look, it’s from the CBC.

7444 And maybe that will actually drive them back to one of our owned and operated platforms. That would be great. But even if it doesn’t, they will carry with them an appreciation for what their public broadcaster is doing for them and the content that they’ve enjoyed.

7445 So it took both pieces of that to be sure that the strategy could ultimately be useful to our broader mandate.

7446 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much for that answer.

7447 I want to move now to news. You probably saw the last ‑‑ gosh has it been two weeks almost ‑‑ during the hearing that there has been some discussion about editorial independence when it comes to newsrooms and news directors.

7448 I just wanted to pick your brains about how does CBC support and empower its regional news directors to respond very quickly to key events and ensure a strong, locally relevant coverage across the country?

7449 MS. WILLIAMS: Some of this is just great joy to talk about, I have to say.

7450 We have a structure at the CBC that has an editor‑in‑chief that is responsible overall for the journalistic standards and practices of all of our news and makes sure that the editorial is strong everywhere in the whole system. And that editor‑in‑chief has key, what we call, senior managing directors that are responsible for regions, where they have their own newsrooms, they have their own audience obligations, they have distinct programming in many ways that is specific to the local audience often in that current affairs category as opposed to The National, which is of course everywhere.

7451 So, there is a balance of giving authority to those regional managers who are overseeing the current affairs ‑‑ and this is on television and on radio and on digital, because the audiences are significant on all of those platforms across the country ‑‑ to ensure that the local audience is being delivered what it needs in a very moment‑by‑moment basis on digital, on a day‑to‑day basis on radio, in a larger basis across some of the bigger programs. But all at the end of the day to ensure that it hangs together as a consistent, reliable, trusted source of news and information from CBC.

7452 So, we really work hard to manage that balance. We know that regional independence is important, and we know that different regions in the country expect different kinds of content and want their dailyness of their unique content. So, we work hard to ensure that they get that.

7453 But the instrument of the larger CBC news, we take advantage of that too, and increasingly look to blend the two, so that when you watch The National, you will see a story from Nova Scotia or from The North, and that you won’t simply think of the CBC as network or as local, but as your CBC.

7454 And we consistently use a phrase that my team, if they were listening to this, would smile at, I think, as I said it: we are one CBC and very determined to make sure that all Canadians feel a connection to their one CBC wherever it is they find it, locally on a local radio show or in the evening potentially on a network show.

7455 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you for that fulsome answer. I appreciate it. Those are all my questions.

7456 Did somebody else want to jump in?

7457 MS. MELOUL: Yes, please. Would you like to hear about the French?

7458 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: I absolutely do.

7459 M^me MELOUL : O.K. Alors, ce que j’adore de CBC/Radio‑Canada, c’est qu’on est le pays dans la même boîte. Et, à cause de ça, on a les mêmes objectifs, mais on les fait différemment souvent pour répondre aux besoins.

7460 Et un des besoins, bien sûr, au niveau de la langue française, c’est les communautés francominoritaires, qui, eux, ont été très clairs pour nous dire à quel point c’est important que leurs voix, leurs histoires, leurs reflets est mis de l’avant.

7461 Alors, notre structure est différente. On a un réseau, un vaste réseau d’information régionale qui est dirigé par une équipe régionale qui a la pleine latitude pour raconter des histoires qu’ils jugent appropriées pour leur marché. Et on a ce qu’on appelle l’information nationale, internationale et affaires publiques qui est regroupé dans un autre groupe.

7462 On travaille de plus en plus ensemble pour les mêmes raisons que Barb a évoquées. Il faut quand même que ces histoires‑là se voient aussi sur les plateformes nationales. Mais vous savez très bien comme moi qu’on se lève le matin, on commence notre nouvelle avec le téléphone et non pas avec le téléjournal. Donc, c’était primordial que cette fluidité puisse rester dans les marchés locaux.

7463 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much.

7464 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for the discussion. I think that was very helpful and insightful for the Panel.

7465 We will turn things back over to you for any concluding remarks.

7466 MS. KIRSHENBLATT: Thank you very much. We do have a few things that we would like to share.

7467 Dany, were you going to start?

7468 M^me MELOUL : Merci beaucoup. Je vais commencer. C’est des choses qu’on vous a déjà dites, mais on veut insister un petit peu sur un point en particulier. Alors, on veut vous dire à quel point il ne faut pas oublier aussi le rôle essentiel des radiodiffuseurs canadiens dans le nouveau cadre réglementaire que vous voulez mettre en place.

7469 Le CRTC devrait reconnaître et soutenir leur contribution, qui est essentielle au système, parce que, dès le début, au niveau de… Excusez‑moi. Dès le début, que ce soit en développement ou à la distribution, à la commercialisation, à la promotion, on joue un rôle intégral en collaboration avec les créateurs du pays. Nous offrons aussi une diversité sur la multiplicité de nos plateformes. C’est quand même important de souligner que les diffuseurs canadiens ont créé des plateformes pour les Canadiens. Et, ça, ça aide grandement au niveau de la découvrabilité aussi.

7470 Et ces plateformes, bien sûr, on offre ce contenu en anglais, en français et en langues autochtones et en langues tierces pour rejoindre les Canadiens partout où ils vivent.

7471 MS. WILLIAMS: The definition of Canadian content is key, and we appreciate the focus that the CRTC is putting on it through this hearing. But as we’ve heard from numerous intervenors, great Canadian content is only possible with increased strong and reliable funding. The foreign streamers have and continue to benefit immensely from the Canadian system. So, the opportunity for the CRTC is to ensure that they make a significant contribution back to the system to support the creation of Canadian and indigenous content.

7472 We believe that the best way to achieve that is through requiring them to contribute to third party funds. In fact, it is the single‑most important contribution that they can make to the sustainability of our critical system. Thank you.

7473 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

7474 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. I will now ask Quebec Official Language Minority Community to come to the presentation table, and we will also connect via Zoom to Miranda.

‑‑‑ Pause

7475 THE SECRETARY: Miranda, if we can just test out your microphone to make sure we can hear you.

7476 No, we cannot hear you.

7477 MR. COX: You don’t want to take a bathroom break? Just checking.

7478 It’s good to be part of the heavy hitters this morning.

7479 THE SECRETARY: We are just going to try to fix Miranda’s microphone with the technicians in the back.

‑‑‑ Pause

7480 THE SECRETARY: Can you hear us perfectly?

7481 MS. CASTRAVELLI: Yes, perfectly fine.

7482 THE SECRETARY: And we can hear you perfectly also.

7483 So, we will hear the presentation of Quebec Official Language Minority Community. Please introduce yourself and your colleagues, and you may begin.

Présentation

7484 MR. COX: Thank you. Sitting to my far left is Kenneth Hirsch, the Official Language Minority producer and Member of the Board of the Quebec English Language Production Council.

7485 Next to him is Arnie Gelbart, an OLMC producer and Co‑Chair of QEPC.

7486 I am Kerwan Cox, Executive Director of QEPC.

7487 On the screen is Miranda Castravelli, Executive Director of the English Language Arts Network, better known as ELAN.

7488 Together with the Quebec Community Groups Network, we represent the official language minority community in Quebec. This is approximately 900,000 anglophones in the Montreal area and 215,000 elsewhere in the province.

7489 Under its new CEO Julie Roy, Telefilm has taken the important initiative of negotiating an Official Language Minority Collaboration Agreement with us. It will be publicly released in July. We believe it will be of interest to the Commission but needs to remain confidential until that time.

7490 Could we submit it to the Commission in confidence?

7491 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for that question. I will turn things over to Legal Counsel to provide some direction on that.

7492 MS. WEXLER: Good morning. Thank you.

7493 I will leave it for Madam Chair to decide if the Panel will take that under advisement.

7494 But whenever making requests for confidential treatment, you are requested to undertake today to submit your request for confidentiality in writing by the end of the hearing today. Your request should provide a detailed explanation for why the new evidence needs to be filed in confidence, based on the requirements in the Broadcasting Act, section 25.3. And at that time, you are required to file an abridged copy for the public record, should the Panel add that evidence to the record.

7495 Would you accept this undertaking to file that?

7496 MR. COX: I think I'll wait till July, let the Telefilm do it publicly. I have already submitted in writing the answers to the questions you put. So, I’ll just wait. I’m sure that this decision will be after July and you can see it.

7497 MS. WEXLER: Okay. Just to clarify, you are withdrawing the request to add the agreement to the record of this proceeding today.

7498 MR. COX: Yes.

7499 MS. WEXLER: Okay, understood. That’s clear.

7500 MR. COX: That’s the simple way of doing it.

7501 Miranda?

7502 MS. CASTRAVELLI: Yes. As you consider the definition of Canadian content ‑‑ and we really do hope you will make that definition as strong as possible ‑‑ we are here today to speak to you about the definition of OLMC, so Official Language Minority specifically in Quebec.

7503 We are a production industry at risk, and the risk is growing, and we need your help to survive. The OLMC peak production was $614 million in the year 2000 and has fallen to $128 million in 2024. This is a loss of about 80 percent of our production in one generation.

7504 At our peak, we were producing 26 percent of total English Cancon, so Canadian content. We now produce 6 percent or less. This decline, we believe, began as a result of the CRTC decision 1997‑1999. This decision undermined broadcaster funding of Canadian content and hurt the industry across Canada, as we’ve seen from other speakers, but nowhere worse than in Quebec.

7505 The exodus of our talent to Toronto and other points west began then and it hasn’t stopped. We have regularly raised this issue with the CRTC over the last 15 years, but unfortunately the support from the Commission has been pro forma and unfortunately inadequate to deal with the scale of the problem.

7506 So where issues have been addressed, unfortunately the follow‑through left a little something to be desired. So we are hoping for a more tight and a more specific definition, which some of my colleagues will expound on.

7507 MR. COX: Kenneth?

7508 MR. HIRSCH: Thank you, Miranda. Good morning.

7509 In the CBC licence renewal 2013‑263, we requested a 10 percent OLMC quota. We got 6 percent and no definition of OLMC production. As a result, non‑OLMC producers filled much of this OLMC quota.

7510 CRTC’s CIPF policy 2016‑343 had no obligations for OLMC production or funding, only that someone be appointed to be concerned about our reflection but not necessarily the obligation to take meaningful action.

7511 In 2017‑148, the Commission provided a bonus for OLMC and Indigenous production. Based upon our research and interviews with broadcasters, the results on OLMC production have been negligible. We continue to decline.

7512 In 2019‑304, the CRTC defined OLMC production. The definition did not distinguish between OLMC and non‑OLMC producers in Quebec. And our production levels continued to decline.

7513 In the CBC licence renewal 2022‑165, the Commission defined OLMC, Indigenous, racialized and disabled producers.

7514 I would like to ask that those definitions be put up on the screen, please.

7515 Everyone has to take out their glasses.

7516 Our definitions are also appended to our submitted remarks, so you can see them there. But I will summarize for you.

7517 In each case, 51 percent of the production company must be owned by the relevant minority, with one exception. The Commission’s OLMC definition does not define the individual producer, and the OLMC production company does not have to be 51 percent OLMC owned.

7518 Therefore, much of the CBC’s spending on their 6 percent OLMC quota goes to non‑OLMC producers, but this is not only a CBC issue. When we analyzed the CMF’s Anglophone Minority Incentive fund, we learned that only 39 percent of AMI funding went to OLMC production. The balance, 61 percent, went to non‑OLMC production.

7519 Arnie?

7520 MR. GELBART: Thank you. Now is the time for the CRTC to finally take some positive measures that will support us on a scale needed to stop and reverse our decline. That’s the decline in production but also our creative base which needs to exile itself from Quebec to have a career.

7521 For 2024‑288, as part of the Canadian content definition that you will establish, we ask you to implement a meaningful definition of OLMC production. We request that you establish a definition modelled on the definition of Indigenous, racialized and disabled producers.

7522 You can see our recommendations on the screen, but perhaps you can read it, which for the first time will give us the same rights as Indigenous, racialized and disabled producers.

7523 OLMC producer means an individual who self‑identifies as a Quebec Official Language Minority Community producer and resides in Quebec.

7524 Or “OLMC producer” means an independent production company which has operated and had its head office in Quebec for at least three years, unless the company is emerging, and in which at least 51 percent of the controlling interest is held by one or more individuals who self‑identify as OLMC and reside in Quebec.

7525 In regards to the definition of “independent production company”, a Canadian or Quebec company also includes a production company of which at least 51 percent of the controlling interest is held by one or more individuals who self‑identify as OLMC and reside in Quebec.

7526 Further, as we point out in our intervention, there are no reliable statistics that identify OLMC production in the Canadian broadcasting system. We request that you provide the research funding to OLMC associations, and require the data needed to identify OLMC productions and other English Quebec productions.

7527 We would be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you.

7528 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for your intervention Thank you for being here with us this morning in person, and virtually as well.

7529 I know that the Panel has a number of questions for you, so I will turn things over to Commissioner Naidoo to get things started.

7530 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thank you so much for being here today, and thanks for your submission.

7531 I want to start off with PNI. You had said in your submission that market dynamics alone, in your view, would not lead to continued investment in PNI. As a preliminary view though, it is no secret that the Commission has stated that PNI is sufficiently being produced, especially among online players, and appears to no longer require regulatory support. But you have probably heard that many intervenors support the Commission’s view, contrary to your view that you’ve stated, and I’m wondering why you believe market dynamics would not lead streaming companies to produce dramas and documents.

7532 MR. HIRSCH: That is a question I think better for Kirwan, but I think what I would like to kind of reposition the question, if I may, is I think without regulation, there will not be sufficient production done by the OLMC community in Quebec in drama and documentary and children. You see the numbers. That’s the trend. It hasn’t reversed. And if we had one message, I guess to drive home today, it’s that we would really request your support in having C‑11 and C‑13 reflected in regulation.

7533 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you. As we have just stated, the Commission believes the current approach to PNI is no longer needed. So, I’m wondering, if the definition of “Canadian content” is changed and if other measures are taken such as imposing Canadian programming expenditure on these services, or requiring additional contribution to funds, would the current PNI categories not be supported enough, in your view?

7534 MS. CASTRAVELLI: Can I take that question particularly of why we’re asking for a specific definition for “official languages”? Because I think that when you do a definition legally, and the reason that other minority groups have had definitions, it is to combat effectively what is a subconscious bias that often happens. And it’s not necessarily through any ill intent; right? It is that it’s what people are used to. People are busy. That’s what happens.

7535 So, with the Official Language Minority in Quebec, what we’re trying to combat here is an assumption, and the assumption has always been that, because the anglosphere, as it is called outside of Quebec, is strong, that that means that it’s going to be de facto strong in Quebec as well. But we are seeing that that is not actually the case. In fact, much like the francophone community in Eastern Ontario, the anglophone community in Quebec is its own thing and therefore requires its own protection to overcome these assumptions that it will sort of be lumped in with everything else and these things will be overcome.

7536 That’s precisely the reason why we are asking for it ‑‑ because the other definitions in fact have not and do not answer our needs specifically.

7537 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you for that. We may come back to that. I just want to move on, and if we have time I may come back and flesh that out a little bit.

7538 In your submission, you also state that English‑language share of the total investment in Canadian programming should be up to 60 percent and the French‑language share should be up to 40 percent. So, I’m wondering if you can explain how you came up with those figures?

7539 MR. COX: Well, 60/40 is a longstanding request from various francophone organizations, including APFC and AQPM. However, we were going to make an adjustment to that, which we are sending to you after the hearing, which is that, in terms of general production, we think it should be 67/33, generally speaking. In terms of specific projects that we are working on with APFC, we think it should be 60/40. And so, there was a misstatement in that particular section. So, it should be 67/33 generally speaking, 60/40 for projects involving the French and English minorities.

7540 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. So, that was a correction from what was submitted?

7541 MR. COX: Yes.

7542 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Okay. I am going to check with Legal or with Staff.

7543 Do we need to have that correction submitted in any way, shape, or form? Or just leave it?

7544 MS. WEXLER: There will be an opportunity in final reply to clarify your position, and what you have stated on the record today will suffice for now. Thank you.

7545 MR. COX: Okay.

7546 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you very much.

7547 All right, let's move to data collection. Your intervention explains the importance of data publication, but it doesn’t really specify confidentiality and how it should be treated. So, I’m wondering how you think the Commission should apply equitable treatment when it comes to data publication?

7548 And I’ve got a bunch of sub‑sections that I can ask you specifically that I’m hoping you will touch on in your answer, but I will let you approach it, and then we will see if we need to follow up with specifics.

7549 MR. COX: I feel everything should be public, but that’s not going to happen, and I know there are people behind me that are, you know, clawing their chairs. And basically, what we look for is data that a particular company may say, “Wait a minute, that’s competitive data and if we release that, we’re going to go bankrupt,” but if that data were combined into a larger scale of data so that an individual company’s information is not revealed but that we can find out what’s going on across the board in a particular area, then that would be a huge help.

7550 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. So, what data is essential for your organization to be able to perform its duties in a data‑driven manner?

7551 MR. HIRSCH: Thank you for the question. I think fundamentally, the challenge we faced over the last 15 years or so is that we haven’t had a workable definition of an official language minority community producer or production. And I think systems have evolved since around 2019, 2020 that CMF uses, and other organizations and agencies use, to self‑identify. And so, the same confidentialities that would apply to those Persona‑ID systems would apply to companies and individuals asking for eligibility under the OLMC guidelines we’re proposing.

7552 So, and as a result of that, we don’t have, and we are a bit in the dark about what percentage of funding that is directed by the government for anglophone minority incentives and other official language minority community incentives, is actually going to be official language minority community. The numbers we’re giving by our calculation are to the best of our ability from the data we have, but we, I believe, have asked for some support financially to be able to dig deeper into that data.

7553 MR. COX: If I could just add one thing, what I think we would say is that since C‑11 and C‑13, the whole question of official language minority data is on a new basis. And what we would like to do is be able to consult with your staff in order to work out what it is possible for them to provide and not provide, and see if we can increase the data as much as possible, and the quality of the data as well.

7554 We produce an official language minority production report every year or two, which is 150 pages long. It has 55 tables. It makes Profile look puny in comparison, but it is really ‑‑ although Nordicity is great; I’m not arguing about that ‑‑ but the thing is that only by having a lot of valuable and clear data are we able to then go to you and say, “Okay, we can see there’s a problem, you know, here or there, and here’s the evidence, and therefore, you know, we hope you can do something.”

7555 So, it’s an ongoing process. No matter what you or I do, we need to then continue to revisit the issue again and again until we begin to get something very clear.

7556 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Yes, there are a lot of issues surrounding the data envelope.

7557 Many intervenors object to data disclosure, stating that they do not want publication and access to their data, for obvious reasons. Can you comment on the importance of data transparency, and what you think would happen if parties such as streaming services are not asked to make their data public?

7558 MR. COX: Well, first of all, they should make their data as public as Canadian broadcasters are making theirs. I don’t think they should be given a special dispensation.

7559 Secondly, they need to give you, the CRTC, everything that you ask for. And then the question is, what do you release, perhaps in a cumulative fashion, and what do you release by individual platform, or whatever it is? But at least, they have to realize that they are in a country that requires sovereignty, and that, whether they like it or not, or whether they do it in the United States or not, they have to do it here. And therefore, if there is confidentiality, okay, but at least you can see the whole picture and see it correctly.

7560 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you very much. Those are all my questions.

7561 MR. COX: Thank you.

7562 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

7563 I will turn it over to Commissioner Paquette.

7564 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hello. I would like to discuss about your suggestion to consider a cultural element to help reflect the OLMC programming. You suggest that, in order to qualify as an OLMC production, a production should integrate a cultural identifier.

7565 I was wondering, isn't there a danger to add an additional criteria or create a double or additional standard for OLMC creators? Does it mean cultural reflection will be required for OLMC while it is not for basic CPE qualification?

7566 MR. HIRSCH: May I just ask what ‑‑ are you referring to a January ‑‑

7567 MR. COX: Jan 20th, yes.

7568 MR. HIRSCH: Okay. So, I would suggest, like our colleagues from the CBC earlier today as well, that we also are still digesting the CMPA brief of ‑‑ I think it was Friday afternoon ‑‑ and we will reserve, I guess, our right to modify slightly our opinions if necessary, where necessary, where appropriate.

7569 You know, for me, I’ve known Canadian content all my life. Like, there’s, to me, four legs to that stool ‑‑ Canadian stories, Canadian values, Canadian talent, and Canadian control of IP ‑‑ Canadian control and final cut. I’ve listened to quite a few intervenors in this process. It strikes me that it’s challenging to legislate Canadian stories and Canadian values, and so, my personal preference is to lean more towards the systems that are in place with 6 on 10 and 10 and 10 production. I would love to see, if there is enough money in the system, CMF allows 6 on 10 production. We can do a lot of stuff with that. I also support flexibility.

7570 But I think the reason that we’re being reticent is because our Board has not yet come to a unified consensus on all of these matters since Friday morning, and we’ll discuss it again, and if there’s any changes, would be permitted to reflect in the record before a certain date. Correct?

7571 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. So, we will wait till a future stage to see if your position remains.

7572 MR. HIRSCH: I think though the answer in general is if you have Canadian ‑‑ these ‑‑ we’re not making automobiles; right? Like, ‑‑

7573 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes.

7574 MR. HIRSCH:  ‑‑ we’re making TV shows, we’re making films, we’re making entertainment. And when you have Canadian talent making those shows, and Canadian control, then you get Canadian content.

7575 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Yes.

7576 So, maybe a more general question if you cannot at this point answer this very specific one. Can you tell us more about what could be different from a cultural point of view between English Canadian content and English OLMC?

7577 MR. HIRSCH: Yes, absolutely. I am so grateful for that question. Listen. I think that maybe what hasn’t been made clear over the last 30 years is that we’re a distinct society within a distinct society. We have a distinct identity. We have a distinct culture, a distinct reality from our anglophone colleagues outside of Quebec. I think we have a lot in common with our French‑speaking colleagues who live outside of Quebec, and I thought Carol Ann’s presentation was excellent, to the Committee.

7578 In order for our communities to survive, we have to tell our stories from our perspectives, just like other underrepresented groups. And, I mean, to make the point, you know, if you walk into any party or any social setting in Toronto or Ottawa, you’ll know right away who the Montrealers are, and we just are a distinct group, and I think that the laws that Parliament has passed speak to that and require that, for good and sufficient reason, not just that we’re viable but that we thrive, and that’s clearly not happening right now.

7579 And I think one of the problems has been that misidentification of our community as a regional community, and whereas we are a region ‑‑ we’re not part of Toronto ‑‑ we are also a separate culture, a separate identity, and a separate community.

7580 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And in terms of type of content, is there a type of content that is more subject to be produced by Quebec OLMC minorities? Or is it all kinds of content?

7581 MR. GELBART: We come at it from a different point of view. Because of the culture ‑‑ the larger culture with whom live, I think, you know, if you look at the cultural history of Canada, a lot of the great Canadian poets, English poets, came from Montreal, and brought a vision of Canada that was different than something that came of Toronto or Winnipeg or Vancouver.

7582 And I think we are in that tradition of having a different point of view, but ‑‑ you know, coming from the minority within Quebec, I think we can bring to Canadian programming and to Canada, and ultimately the world, something somewhat different than the rest of English Canada produces.

7583 You know, it’s the ‑‑ kind of the magnetic connection that we have with the majority population in Quebec gives us a point of view and generates content that is original, and I think speaks to what Canada is.

7584 I mean, my own history is that I made, at the time when it was possible to make, a history of Canada. You know, we made 40 hours of high‑end Canadian history, and one of the things that sort of isn't being talked about here is the kind of programming that we need to make in Canada that may not be automatically exportable.

7585 But, you know, who is going to tell the story and the history of Canada? The Americans are constantly telling their story ‑‑ about the West, about the conquest of this, that, and the other thing. Who in Canada is going to tell those stories? And I think, because of where we are, we are able to generate these kinds of stories that then become extremely successful across Canada.

7586 MR. COX: I would like to add one thing about the cultural element question. In the past whatever it’s been ‑‑ 10 years ‑‑ service production in this country has increased dramatically. It’s not hard to see the statistics, going from maybe one‑and‑a‑half billion dollars up to four or five billion dollars, and who knows what. Canadian content has been stagnant. It’s been at about one‑and‑a‑half to two billion dollars flat for 10 years.

7587 So, the question of cultural element is a fear that we are going to end up with service production called “Canadian content flex”, and it’s going to continue to go up as service production, and we are going to become the service ‑‑ the hewers of wood and drawers of water, if I can go back a few years ‑‑ and that that is what our fate is going to be ‑‑ if we don’t push against that.

7588 Cultural element is maybe a way of pushing against it, although obviously it makes it harder for a producer to produce ‑‑ a Canadian producer. What some of us fear is that we’re going to end up a service country, and that’s all ‑‑ except in French ‑‑ but in English, we’re doomed. And we have to depend on you to not go along with our doom, and we know that it’s a very difficult situation for you. Glad you’re in court. But that’s the kind of partners we have potentially ‑‑ people who take you to court because they’re not happy that you’re acting like a country.

7589 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: I just wanted to see ‑‑ Ms. Castravelli, you wanted to intervene?

7590 MS. CASTRAVELLI: I just wanted to add a little colour in support of what Kenneth and Arnie were both saying. When it comes time ‑‑ because you have asked, is there a particular part of the art that is more at risk than others ‑‑ and the answer is “not really.” It is true that it is sort of the four‑legged stool, as Kenneth had said, that it’s like when you have the right elements, those things sort of come naturally. And the reason that that happens is that, when an artist is creating something, they’re taking, they’re drawing from all of the influences that have led to that point in their lives. Right?

7591 So, when you are surrounded by a francophone majority in Quebec, and you are exposed to all the pop culture ‑‑ you know, Mitsou and Les Bleu Poudre and all of these other things ‑‑ you know, Passe‑Partout, as somebody was saying earlier ‑‑ there is a particular perspective that comes out of it.

7592 There is also, as Arnie said, a particular history of the specific individuals who remain anglophone but have their own trajectory from their immigrant roots or from their Native roots to what brings them to the English language, that is not the same as in other parts of the country. So, that’s why it is distinct.

7593 And, as I have said earlier, that’s why a definition for that particular thing is important. And is it at risk? Yes, because as Kirwin just said, otherwise, it is a sort of a lumping‑in and a loss of our own identity. Right? So, the risk is more intrinsic to the group rather than a geographic location or a regional location. It is intrinsic to the group by its nature of what makes it work and what makes it a group.

7594 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you very much. And I have no more questions. So, thank you for your comments and intervention today.

7595 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation today. Thank you for answering our questions. I think we touched on a broad range of topics together.

7596 We would like to turn things back over to you if there’s something that we didn’t talk about that you would like to add, or any kind of key messages you would like to leave with us.

7597 MR. HIRSCH: Sure. I would just like to follow up one last time, thank you for the opportunity, on Commissioner Paquette’s question ‑‑ because, you know, when I said you’ll recognize Montrealers as different, I wasn’t talking about clothes and I wasn’t talking about the way they look. I really was talking about values. I think what should never be lost in the mix is that anglophones in Montreal are proud Québécois, and many of our values we share with the six‑and‑a‑half million first official language spoken French Québécois along with us. And so, what Miranda’s point is, I just want to reemphasize ‑‑ different stories come from those different values and different backgrounds and different histories and different identities, and the stories that we’re not getting to tell are the stories that will allow us to keep the fabric of our community alive so that we can once again thrive and be vital.

7598 Thank you.

7599 MR. COX: Thank you.

7600 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Thank you for your participation.

7601 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now a lunch break, and be back at 12:50.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 12 h 01

‑‑‑ Reprise à 12 h 51

7602 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the presentation of the Disability Screen Office. Please introduce yourself and your colleague, and you may begin.

Présentation

7603 MS. LUK: Good afternoon Madam Chair, Commissioners and Staff. My name is Winnie Luk, and I am the executive director of the Disability Screen Office or DSO. My self‑description is: I'm a Chinese woman with short black hair, and I'm wearing a blue‑patterned collared top. With me today is Yazmine Laroche, our wonderful chair of the DSO board of directors.

7604 M^me LAROCHE : Bonjour. Je suis vraiment ravie d’être ici avec vous et avec Winnie aujourd’hui. Je me décris comme une femme à la peau claire avec les cheveux courts et bouclés et je porte habituellement des lunettes rouges.

7605 Merci infiniment de nous avoir donné l’occasion de partager nos perspectives concernant les talents en situation de handicap dans l’industrie de l’écran à travers le Canada. L’ORPHÉ, créé en 2022, est un organisme national à but non lucratif dirigé par des personnes en situation de handicap. Notre mission consiste à promouvoir la participation des personnes en situation de handicap et d’améliorer l’accessibilité et la représentativité de l’industrie canadienne de l’écran.

7606 Comme vous le savez sans doute, selon le dernier recensement, 27 pour cent de la population canadienne se trouve en situation de handicap. Nous travaillons actuellement avec la firme Nordicity pour déterminer d’abord le nombre de personnes en situation de handicap travaillant dans l’industrie canadienne de l’écran, celles qui désirent y travailler et quels sont les défis auxquels elles font face. Nous serons heureux de partager ce rapport avec vous dès qu’il sera disponible.

7607 Mais nous savons, d’après les réactions de notre communauté, que très peu de personnes en situation de handicap ont pu faire carrière dans l’industrie de l’écran. Alors, leurs histoires n’ont pas pu être racontées au Canada ou ailleurs. Nous sommes convaincus qu’il existe une réserve inexploitée de talents en situation de handicap qui sont prêts à saisir les occasions qui se présenteront si le cadre réglementaire les soutient.

7608 Plus important encore, le Conseil a l’obligation, en vertu de la Loi sur la radiodiffusion, de répondre aux besoins et aux intérêts de tous les Canadiens, y compris les personnes en situation de handicap.

7609 Further, as a federally regulated sector under the Accessible Canada Act, the broadcasting system must remove barriers to participation.

7610 MS. LUK: The DSO supports a Canadian content certification system that ensures that Canadians have creative control, engage Canadian key creatives, and have IP ownership. A regulatory framework that ensures a predominance of Canadian talent and ownership will provide opportunities for disabled Canadian talent.

7611 We have been working with Canadian producers and showrunners on their understanding of the access needs of disabled talent and their legal rights and obligations under provincial and federal legislation. While there is still work to be done, we are confident that these Canadian producers and showrunners are our partners and they will work with us to facilitate the storytelling of their fellow disabled Canadians.

7612 We have less confidence with American producers and platforms, particularly given the recent change in politics and the seeming rush to get rid of equity incentives and programs south of the border. The current shift in American politics away from equity‑deserving groups and even acknowledging that these groups exist is a current example of why we cannot rely on American streamers to tell our stories.

7613 However, although the contrast is greater now, we have always needed a regulatory framework that supported Canadians telling their own stories. For that reason, the DSO does not support getting rid of PNI CPE and simply relying on American streamers to commission dramas and documentaries. Instead, the DSO supports maintaining PNI CPE and extending it to non‑Canadian streamers.

7614 Dramas and documentaries are important elements of Canadian storytelling that help us to see ourselves, and we want those opportunities for disabled storytellers. We want more Canadian dramas and documentaries because they provide opportunities for disabled talent to learn their craft and become storytellers.

7615 DSO further supports an equity CPE to ensure that it is regulatory policy that broadcasters and streamers commit to spending money on programming produced by members of equity‑deserving communities. It is not good enough to ask streamers and broadcasters to support the broadcasting policy goals of the Act through promises. Only regulatory commitments will ensure that the money is spent on productions made by members of equity‑deserving communities.

7616 DSO proposes an equity CPE of 30 per cent of the CanCon CPE that each broadcaster and streamer will be required to spend. We remind the Commission that a similar equity CPE starting at 30 per cent was established as part of the last CBC licence renewal after a very thoughtful analysis of what was required to ensure that the CBC had a measurable equity expenditure requirement.

7617 We propose that the identity of both key creatives and the ownership of production companies be tracked so that over time the Commission and stakeholders can determine if more targeted intervention is required to ensure that disabled Canadians have access to the Canadian broadcasting system and Canadian audiences are able to enjoy content created by disabled Canadians.

7618 DSO strongly supports demographic data collection that is robust, follows the highest standards in privacy protection, and ensures that demographic data is collected from all key creatives and production company ownership. We will only have a full picture of who is doing what if everyone is asked to self‑identify and not just those who are from equity‑deserving groups. It will also increase the response rate if it is the norm for everyone to self‑identify.

7619 However, we are concerned that another layer of bureaucracy could create more barriers for those disabled producers who struggle with paperwork. We encourage the Commission to work with industry to develop either a common data collection system that utilizes best practices that the industry has developed, or at least a harmonized one.

7620 M^me LAROCHE : Comme nous l’avons mentionné précédemment, notre objectif est d’aider au Conseil à établir un cadre réglementaire qui permettra aux personnes en situation de handicap de développer leur carrière et d’apporter une contribution importante à un secteur qui est vraiment essentiel à notre perception de ce que nous sommes et de ce que nous pouvons devenir. Ce que nous avons proposé est un pas dans la bonne direction. Et nous espérons qu’il permettra d’avancer vers des solutions plus concrètes.

7621 Merci encore. Il nous fera plaisir de répondre à vos questions.

7622 LA PRÉSIDENTE : Merci beaucoup. Merci pour votre présentation aujourd’hui.

7623 Thank you to the DSO for being here with us again and sharing your perspectives with us. We really appreciate it. I know that we want to get into a bit of discussion, so I will very quickly turn things over to my colleague Commissioner Paquette. Thank you.

7624 CONSEILLÈRE PAQUETTE : Bonjour. Je commencerais par une question d’ordre plus général, à savoir : comment est‑ce que vous définissez le contenu qui est fait par ou pour une personne handicapée? Et, quand je dis « définir », je veux dire comme en tant que produit qu’on voit à l’écran. Est‑ce qu’il y a une différence entre un contenu fait par des personnes handicapées versus du contenu fait par personnes non handicapées ou est‑ce que c’est plus une question d’opportunité?

7625 Would you like me to ask the question in ‑‑

7626 M^me LAROCHE : C’est très… moi, j’aimerais dire que ce n’est pas nécessairement qu’il y a une différence entre le contenu. C’est le fait qu’on ne le voit pas. On n’a pas accès. C’est presque inaccessible dans le système présentement. Alors, ce sont des voix qui sont uniques, qui représentent une perspective, un point de vue. Et c’est une perspective, un point de vue qu’on ne voit pas, qu’on n'écoute pas présentement. Alors… Mais, ce que je dirais, c’est comme : il y a un secteur de l’industrie qui représente une identité des personnes en situation de handicap? Je dirais que non. Et, ça, c’est probablement plutôt parce que c’est la question d’intersectionnalité.

7627 Les perspectives de moi en termes de personne avec un handicap sont très différentes des perspectives de ma collègue Winnie. Nous sommes des individus. On vit avec des barrières. On est confrontées par les barrières. Mais ce n’est pas toujours… Ce ne sont pas les mêmes barrières. Alors, ce ne sont pas nécessairement les mêmes perspectives ni les mêmes histoires.

7628 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So you are telling me the content itself can be different depending on the perspective. But there must be also a concern of the opportunity to work in the industry.

7629 MS. LAROCHE: So I'll just, on behalf of Winnie, of course, there's a huge concern because the barriers to entry in this sector are immense. And it's the raison d'être of the DSO. We exist because the barriers for Canadians living with disabilities to find work, to retain work in this industry are immense.

7630 And one of the things that we're doing right now, and I mentioned that in my introductory remarks, is we're working with Nordicity to actually start to track who's currently working in the industry and, more importantly, to identify those who want to but can't right now because of the barriers and start to build a much better evidence case around the nature of the barriers that allows us to work with our partners throughout the industry in terms of removing those barriers.

7631 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. And you support the requirements of Canadians in certain key roles, such as the producer role. You say that you rely on Canadians in hiring positions to provide opportunities to talent with disabilities. Can you tell us more about how this helps, and why do you think the foreign services or foreign copyright owners cannot be as much supportive of talent with disabilities than Canadians?

7632 MS. LUK: Yes, thank you for that. Our partnerships, our collaboration, our trust are within the Canadian system with the Canadian creatives and Canadian control, financial control. And we have legislation that's specific to Canada. And we trust that our partners, Canadian producers, broadcasters, funders, everyone that we work with across the industry is starting to learn ‑‑ can't say that they understand fully ‑‑ but starting to learn about the legislation, the Accessible Canada Act and the Broadcasting Act and what is required.

7633 And so it's not that we don't trust the American streamers, but our mission and mandate and focus are on Canadian disabled creatives and talent. And we are a very new organization building these relationships right now, and they are mostly within the Canadian context. And we have grown very quickly with the support of our Canadian colleagues and partners and collaborators. And there has been a real investment into our organization. And so that is a testament right now that is much needed in Canada and within Canada and within the Canadian screen industry.

7634 And we are a small organization. Again, we were only established independently in 2022. It was me and an amazing group of board members of seven for over a year and a half, and we've only grown the organization. So even pacing out my capacity and who we can partner with and work with, we have focused and prioritized the Canadian screen industry. And so these relationships that we have built and the trust and the learnings and awareness that's happening right now is within our Canadian screen industry.

7635 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. So I understand you built something in Canada, and you feel you would have to start all over again if it were non‑Canadian hirings in strategic roles?

7636 MS. LUK: It's not that we're starting over again because, to be perfectly honest, before the very new administration, Canada was actually behind the US, UK, and Australia.

7637 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

7638 MS. LUK: But it's unpredictable what's happening right now south of the border. And what we can trust and what we can make sure and control and again build the relationships is within the Canadian screen industry context and the framework and the systems within. America, right now, it's unpredictable.

7639 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. I understand.

7640 The Deaf Wireless Consultative Committee supports having a cultural element in the definition and increased points if it includes persons with disabilities. Can you expand on why you oppose having cultural elements as part of the definition? And what's your view on this proposal of the DWCC?

7641 MS. LUK: So in the sense of cultural definition, we don't think it's in the space of the CRTC regulatory framework. And we're working with broadcasters and funders who consult with us and engage with us to understand the disability community much more, the diversity and the range and the spectrum within the disability community. And so we think it's more appropriate at that level to engage and consult.

7642 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So it would be more at the level of the expenses requirements or funding than the definition. Do I understand that correctly what ‑‑

7643 MS. LUK: Well, we do support the proposed increased point system. And we also support the new role of showrunner. We understand the flexibility, and we support that. But in the sense of creative control and content creation and Canadian content, again, back to Canadian context.

7644 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. In your intervention, you support incentives for engaging more disabled talent. Again, the WCC on the other end suggest a firmer approach with the imposition of expenditure and programming for equity‑deserving groups. And I think you touched a bit about that, but can you continue to expand on your position in this regard, if we compare your position to the WCC?

7645 MS. LUK: Thank you for that. Upon reflection, we do lean more towards requirement now. Incentives are good, but at this point in time, we believe that requirements are more ‑‑ will get us to the place we want to be at faster.

7646 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. So you are more on the requirement side, on the stick side than the carrot side.

7647 MS. LUK: Mm‑hmm, don't love the stick analogy, but in the sense of collaboration and partnership and working together to build again a more inclusive and accessible Canadian industry, requirements are needed right now.

7648 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Very good. And I have one last question before letting my colleagues also ask their questions. You mentioned that you would like to see a thoughtful review of AI technology. I took that from your intervention. You say so that AI is used as a tool that creates greater accessibility rather than some barrier that has to be overcome by the disabled people. You also recommend a public consultation on creating guardrails for the use of AI content that would not perpetuate biases that are experienced by disabled creators. AI could be a key to accessibility, but you don't seem convinced. I would like to hear you more on the potential barriers or biases caused by AI.

7649 MS. LUK: Thank you. AI can certainly be a tool that helps with the disability community in gaining access, but it is just that, a tool. It needs human intervention. It can never replace. In regards to guardrails and what's happening, consultation is needed because it's happening. It's progressing so quickly. Things are changing. And in the sense of biases, AI collects information in what is out there right now. And what is out there right now is attitudinal and ableism, unfortunately. And so for it to work in our favour to support the disability community and to gain more access into the industry, it is really about engaging folks who are disabled who use these tools to make sure that they are actually benefitting our community. It can never stand alone. It will always need human intervention.

7650 Even with what we had talked about in our closed captioning consultation, you know, AI right now is used to progress captioning for a lot of projects and/or events, but it is not 100 per cent. It is not accurate. What needs to be done, as an example, is that you can use it but also have human intervention and insert the words or at least review what it's actually capturing. So again, it can never be used stand‑alone.

7651 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: And you think there should be a specific review on AI instead of talking about it through some consultation? There should be something very specific done ‑‑

7652 MS. LUK: Yes. Yes, AI in itself is a beast. It cannot just be through, I think, attached on a consultation. It has to be reviewed on its own. It can really benefit the Canadian screen industry and the disability community, but only, again, with real review, with rigorous review and guardrails and policies. And we need to do that fast because it is moving very, very quickly.

7653 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you very much. I don't have more questions.

7654 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I know we are short on time. I will turn things over to the vice‑chair.

7655 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Bonjour. Bon après‑midi. Just a quick question to follow up on the conversation you just had with my colleague regarding the definition. And you did clearly indicate in your submission that you did not support adding a cultural element.

7656 One of the suggestions that was put to us by one intervenor is adding a diversity criteria to the point system. This is something that can be found in the UK point system. The intervenor did not specify whether that diversity point should be mandatory or a bonus point, but I was interested in hearing your reaction as to whether this is perhaps a way to put a hook in the definition for communities such as the one that you represent.

7657 MS. LUK: We don't believe at this time that it should be in the space of Canadian certification under the CRTC. Again, we work with broadcasters and funders and other partners, and we feel that with them we can work out the diversity, whether they're bonuses or funds. I mean, right now, we also believe in working with the structure that is currently in place. So again, working with our partners, with our collaborators, funders, broadcasters, everyone across the sector to ensure that there is diversity and that the disability community is included.

7658 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you very much. That's all.

7659 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you. We would like to turn things back over to you for any concluding thoughts.

7660 MS. LUK: Thank you. The Disability Screen Office was founded with intent to build an accessible and inclusive Canadian screen industry where disabled creatives can thrive. Our goal is consistent with the Broadcasting Act's policy goals that include the Canadian broadcasting system serving the needs and interests of all Canadians, including Canadians with disabilities, through the programming provided. But frankly, we have been disappointed by the silence from most other stakeholders about accessibility and the need to provide opportunities to disabled talent.

7661 We appreciate that the legislation and the Commission now support disabled Canadians in ways they haven't in the past. Recent examples include the Commission's semi‑annual spotlight on accessibility newsletter and the publication of guidelines on accessibility and accommodations for public hearings.

7662 Despite the lack of recognition of disability needs displayed by so many of our colleagues during this hearing process, we have partnered with a number of stakeholders to advance opportunities and accessibility for disabled talent. Our concern is expanding those partnerships across the entire broadcasting system. To that end, we hope that the Commission continues to consult with us and work with us to implement a regulatory framework that supports disabled Canadian creators and helps them to thrive and create content for disabled and non‑disabled Canadians alike.

7663 Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. Merci.

7664 MS. LAROCHE: Merci.

7665 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you for being here.

7666 THE SECRETARY: Merci. We will take a short five‑minute break and be back at 1:20.

‑‑‑ Suspension à 13 h 15

‑‑‑ Reprise à 13 h 18

7667 THE SECRETARY: Welcome back. We will now hear the next participants, On Screen Manitoba and Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association.

7668 We will hear each presentation, which will then be followed by questions by the Commissioners to all participants.

7669 We will begin with the presentation by On Screen Manitoba. Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

7670 MR. PEELER: Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, Commissioners and CRTC staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

7671 My name Jeff Peeler, and I am a Manitoba‑based film and television producer and Co‑Chair of the Board of Directors of On Screen Manitoba, our provincial media production industry association.

7672 On Screen Manitoba has over 2,000 members working in both the English and French language markets and include industry professionals who reflect the full diversity of Manitoba’s population. You have heard from many national organizations and today with my partner here, I would like to highlight the importance of regional independent Canadian production.

7673 Content developed and produced by those of us who are regionally based provides a unique perspective and contributes to opportunities for industry professionals to live and work across the country. Any definition of Canadian content along with regulatory mechanisms must take into account both the value of regional voices and the challenges faced outside the major markets.

7674 I will touch on three key items relative to the definition of Canadian content and reflect about the experience of the members of On Screen Manitoba: CPE and PNI; IP ownership; and transparent public data.

7675 CPE and PNI have been critical in supporting the creation and dissemination of Canadian content. They have contributed to strengthen and grow the Canadian independent production sector, providing opportunity for Canadian creators and producers to tell a range of unique Canadian and Indigenous stories across all genres, in both official languages and from all regions of the country. Those stories reflect our collective values, our unique experiences and our demographic diversity.

7676 CPE and PNI have proven effective and adaptable to the technological evolution of the broadcasting system, and PNI is currently the only tool that directly supports investment in Canadian independent production.

7677 Therefore, we believe that CPE and PNI should be applied to online undertakings, both domestic and foreign.

7678 In Manitoba we’ve produced many successful shows that were supported through CPE and PNI and through requirements, the broadcasters actively seek and work with regionally based producers and creators.

7679 Examples from the English market include dramas Burden of Truth and Little Bird, factual series like Taken, animated children’s series like Chums, comedies like Acting Good and a number of blue chip documentaries for international audiences.

7680 Examples from the French market in Manitoba include drama like Le Monde de Gabrielle Roy and factual series like Au pays de Mitchifs.

7681 Manitoba productions enrich the Canadian content available to everyone, both nationally and globally. In defining Canadian content and ensuring the sustainability of our independent production sector, ownership does matter.

7682 Regulatory mechanisms such as CPE and PNI that include independent Canadian production spending requirements are critical to ensuring authentic regional perspectives. We agree with the CMPA, the APFC and other intervenors that a percentage of CPE requirements should be allocated to regional independent Canadian‑owned productions where the independent producer retains 100 percent of the IP and ongoing exploitation rights.

7683 We also agree that a code of practices is required to help producers maintain those rights.

7684 On Screen Manitoba urges the CRTC to ensure majority Canadian ownership and creative control is a key principle in the definition of Canadian content. IP ownership allows independent Canadian production companies to benefit from the financial return on their work, strengthening companies and their capacity to innovate, to develop and to create Canadian content.

7685 I would like to briefly note On Screen Manitoba’s concerns with the Commission’s current and proposed point system.

7686 The current system was designed for dramatic content, leaving gaps with regards to long form documentary and other genres. The proposed changes to the framework introduced more challenges. Roles proposed in the new point system do not exist in some genres or, like the term Showrunner, are not consistently in use.

7687 The French language production sector is organized differently. We generally agree with the positions taken by the CMPA, the AQPM and the APFC with regard to a modernized point system.

7688 And finally, I want to take a moment to underline the importance of public data.

7689 Transparent, detailed, annual, publicly available data is fundamental to inform policy development, effective resource allocation and to ensure regional, linguistic and demographic equity.

7690 Where the Commission has introduced detailed reporting requirements, we have all collectively gained an understanding of the effectiveness of regulatory mechanisms.

7691 We ask the Commission to expand its requirements for annual reporting to include not only our public and private conventional broadcasters, but also public, private and foreign online undertakings.

7692 For the reporting to be meaningful, it should include, at minimum, a breakdown of revenues, expenditures and number of projects by regions, by language market and by genre.

7693 To conclude, as the Commission moves forward with modernizing Canada’s broadcasting framework, we encourage the implementation of policy that defines Canadian content through Canadian financial and creative control, that protects and prioritizes 100 percent ownership and control of independent Canadian productions, that facilitates equitable regional participation in both official languages, including through OLMCs and that supports Indigenous people and equity deserving communities ownership and control of their own stories across all regions of Canada.

7694 Thank you for the opportunity to present today. I welcome your questions once my colleague has presented.

7695 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now hear the presentation of Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association.

7696 Please introduce yourself, and you may begin.

Présentation

7697 MS. EDWARDS: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Vice‑Chairs, Commissioners and staff.

7698 My name is Connie Edwards, and I am an independent producer from Alberta. I am pleased to be here today representing ‑‑ we’ve had a little name change ‑‑ Alberta Media Production Industries Association.

7699 Over the last 30 years, we have witnessed significant maturation and growth in Alberta’s media production industry. We boast exceptional crews, diverse filming locations and, importantly, world‑class independent producers recognized around the world through Canadian Screen Awards, Emmys and international accolades, including Oscar winning animation collaboration with the NFB.

7700 Alberta producers create compelling programming across drama, documentary, lifestyle and animation genres, exporting content that resonates both nationally and internationally. Programs such as Horse Warriors, Skinanmarink and the Human Odyssey exemplify Alberta’s capacity to create stories that Canadians and the world wants to watch.

7701 Never in recent history has it been more important to stand up and say we are Canadian. We have seen people from across this country unite in consuming Canadian goods and content. This is our moment.

7702 Our support for Canadian content has gotten us to this point of discussion, and we need to recommit to the cultural values we hold to as Canadian and Indigenous peoples. We are a geographically large country with a dispersed and diverse population, and it is our job as content producers to reflect Canadian and Indigenous stories, ideas, values, issues and perspectives.

7703 Through these hearings, we have an opportunity to reshape and commit to our future.

7704 So, how do we build towards our Canadian future with bold ideas, without deviating from our core values? We strongly support maintaining robust levels of programs of national interest and Canadian program expenditures to ensure Canadian broadcasters continue to sufficiently develop, license and promote Canadian independent productions.

7705 We strongly support stable and flexible funding through the Canada Media Fund, to deliver timely and flexible programs and policies, to address the unpredictable nature of this industry sector and to creating pathways for growth. We strongly support Canadian ownership and control of both creative and financial production elements as one of the mandatory pillars of our industry. Upholding strong Canadian ownership and control of IP and financial elements form the core of our creative and economic sustainability. The dollars generated by the sales of our programs keep our doors open and contribute to new development as national development funding programs, as we’ve heard, are under duress.

7706 We need to include more stories from various regions of the country, all of which contribute to the whole of who we are. Folks in PEI have a different lens than those of us in Alberta, or in Nunavut. It is the weaving together of all of our stories that makes us a strong, vibrant community of storytellers.

7707 However, most importantly, it needs to be recognized that Canadian producers from outside the main production centres inherently operate at a disadvantage when competing for funding and financing. Regional producers such as ours are predominantly small and medium‑sized companies, often with a limited slate of projects ranging across multiple genres in order to keep the lights on and our company solvent.

7708 Few of us can produce drama without partnering with a larger production company based outside of Alberta in order to bring on a major broadcaster and complete financing of the project.

7709 Currently, as we’ve heard, the Canadian Media Fund’s regional production incentive is inconsistently funded and oversubscribed each year. Therefore, it is unpredictable as a secure funding source for Albertans and for other regional producers.

7710 Current policy and decision‑making is far from our access and input, and there seems to be a central tendency sometimes to forget about or dismiss regional production as of lesser value. Today, we have a powerful opportunity to build a more resilient and inclusive Canadian media system, one that supports Indigenous and regional voices, invests in producers from coast‑to‑coast‑to‑coast and embraces the unique perspectives that define us as Canadians. To succeed, we must ensure that every region, including Alberta, receives its fair share of funding as an essential part of our country’s creative funding.

7711 Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today.

7712 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for, I assume, some travel to be here with us in person. We really appreciate having you.

7713 I think we have a lot of questions, so I will fairly quickly turn things over to Vice‑Chair Théberge to get things started. Thank you.

7714 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. Nice to meet you. Welcome to Gatineau.

7715 I want to make sure that both of you get an opportunity to respond to my questions, so I won’t necessarily direct my question to one of you. I will let you figure out how you want to answer.

7716 You did mention in your respective submissions the need to talk about regional economic interest, and these interests not necessarily being properly reflected in the current regulatory regime.

7717 I think, Screen Manitoba, you argue that the CRTC should, quote, embed regional production into the CRTC’s broader EDI strategy to ensure fair representation and access to resources for all Canadian regions.

7718 Do you think the current definition of Canadian programming is the best way to support regional interest? If not, what type of specific measures should we be considering to support regional programming in a modernized framework? Should it be through program expenditures? Should it be through making changes to the definition?

7719 In that regard, there’s an intervenor that actually made the suggestion that we add a diversity criteria to the definition. Diversity can be defined in a multitude of ways.

7720 Would that be an appropriate hook to ensure some regional diversity in the Canadian content that’s being produced?

7721 MS. EDWARDS: Thank you for that question. It really lies at the heart of our experience.

7722 I think one of the success stories was the introduction of the regional bonus through the CMF, and in the first years it worked very well to help us with our financing and certainly was the carrot for some broadcasters to come and produce with us, all part of the growing, I think, of our Canadian system.

7723 As financial pressures have come to bear, that envelope is less and less available to the degree that it was, and it is more challenging from the regions to fulfil the financing.

7724 You know, it’s hard to say if there needs to be a specific quota, if you will, but there should definitely be some encouragement and incentive, because we need to tell stories from the regions. We are seeing success with some of those stories. I think Canadians now really want to hear from other Canadians and experience what they are perhaps experiencing or at least learn about who they are across the country. I think there’s an appetite.

7725 If there’s a way that the Commission can support something in the regions to ensure that those stories get out, not just on a regional platform, but onto that national stage and international stage with the streamers, we would be delighted to speak with you about that and find some of the details as one has to tease that out.

7726 Jeff?

7727 MR. PEELER: It's a great question. I am not sure ‑‑ I mean, Canadian content is Canadian content, whatever the definition we all come to agree on. And I think in the region it’s still Canadian content.

7728 But there are some other things that maybe I think are important to the regions, not only Manitoba.

7729 The removal of PNI could result in a drop in expenditures, production expenditures, for certain genres that we do well and do well in the regions. So that concerns us, unless there is some new mechanism by which there is more money in the system; so a mandate for independent production expenditures, for instance. If there is more money in the system, more of it will make its way to the regions, I would think.

7730 Supporting the CMF and other independent production funds who do have the mechanisms in place to earmark funding for the regions and making sure that they are a part of our system and can do the jobs that they’ve been mandated to do.

7731 A code of practice, I think will benefit everyone in our industry, but certainly those of us in the region who are working at a bit more of a disadvantage, being in smaller markets. Levelling that playing field when we are negotiating, that would be helpful.

7732 And then finally, I think requiring data collection would be an important mechanism by which we can track the benefit to the system and how the goals are being met. That is data information that can be used to help bolster the case that there should be more support for the regions, or whether or not we are reaching the regions in speaking to those, giving those opportunities to the regions as well.

7733 MS. EDWARDS: And may I add the importance and the value of IP, especially to us in the regions. When we own the IP and we are able to sell those programs around the globe, the dollars that come back ‑‑ so if I can speak for a moment as an independent producer, when I started 30 years ago, it was very challenging for me, not just to make a program but to sell it. And I am happy to tell you that I have matured and have been more successful. The programs I am able to sell around the world, the dollars come back to my company, and it allows me to develop the next programs, when sometimes, like right now, there’s not a lot of development funding. And so it falls either to the broadcaster, or it falls to the producers in the regions and across the country, especially the smaller companies who don’t have a lot. But that IP allows us to reinvest the money from the sales of our programs.

7734 So I just need to just express how important it is for us to keep that for ourselves. Thank you.

7735 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Let's talk about IP, because we’ve spoken a lot about IP for the past few days. It’s quite unbelievable.

7736 Assuming that international partnerships are a goal in themselves, meaning that they bring value and they make the production of Canadian content easier, that is an assumption that I certainly would be interested in hearing your reaction on that assumption alone.

7737 But going directly into IP, IP is often presented as being maybe a token, a money of exchange. It’s through flexibility around IP regulations that you will facilitate international partnership.

7738 And we’ve got some intervenors that say that’s not necessarily true. We had the CBC earlier this morning saying no, we need to keep the IP, international partnership. International partners will still come and knock on our door.

7739 You have the CMPA and AQPM who said well, you know, maybe we should think about a more flexible model around IP. We should have model A where all the IP is kept by Canadian creators. But then you’ve got model B, where there is a little more flexibility.

7740 What is your reaction to (a) the assumption that international partnerships are indeed very important to the sustainability of Canadian independent production and just, more broadly speaking, the production of Canadian content and finding markets; and (b) that we should perhaps consider putting some flexibility in our IP regulation as a way to facilitate international partnerships?

7741 Sorry, it’s a mouthful maybe. I apologize. I’m trying to put everything into one question.

7742 MR. PEELER: IP ownership is incredibly important. It is the way we can capitalize our companies. We can keep the lights on. We can invest in our own development, invest in workforce development and the next generation of people who will be sitting at this table in a number of years.

7743 But every deal is different. So, as important as IP ownership is, I think it’s incredibly important that there’s also flexibility.

7744 I could be trying to pitch a show to someone who the only way to get them to come onboard might be to share some of the IP ownership. We can still keep it Canadian, but there’s a bit of a shared there. Or, as we’ve heard from other intervenors, IP ownership ‑‑ giving up of IP ownership isn’t required, and they’re wanting the content and wanting to buy into the content as it is.

7745 I think, ultimately, every deal is different. There are other mechanisms to share in the rewards of what we do through other means of participation that aren’t IP ownership.

7746 So I think maximum flexibility with guardrails, that tight rope you have to walk, I think that’s important to the regions. We’re working with so many. There are other challenges we’re working with in the regions, and to have maximum flexibility to put our deals together, I think is important for our membership.

7747 MS. EDWARDS: I will agree with my colleague. I think the key here ‑‑ and we’ve heard it today and previously. I think flexibility is the key.

7748 For the smaller companies, IP is crucial. For maybe the larger companies, the larger products projects, flexibility may be the key. If we’re looking to the future, there are so many more co‑productions. When I go to markets, I hear all the time ‑‑ and I am in co‑production meetings. So flexibility but with guardrails. I like that. There’s always a way to negotiate the deal, but we just can’t lose sight of Canadians having the right to determine what that level should be, based on their company needs.

7749 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Would that idea of flexibility with guardrails also apply to the definition itself?

7750 So, again, we have several intervenors presenting several proposals. There’s don’t touch it; it’s working as it is. There was another recommendation that perhaps we should have like a two‑tier kind of approach, where you’ve got a set list of mandatory positions, but then you’ve got bonus points to be able to reflect sometime some of the specificities, the specific genres. I’m thinking of documentaries in particular.

7751 Which model do you think is the better model moving forward?

7752 MS. EDWARDS: When we first reviewed what the Commission had put forward, we were a real leave it alone, it’s fine. And we were very concerned about what that might do to the documentary specifically.

7753 As we have listened to the interventions and listened to the points of view and some of your thoughts, again, we think flexibility may be the key, the 6 out of 10 that’s been proposed, or the 9 out of 15, as long as it is still majority Canadian. I think that’s the key.

7754 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Irrespective of the positions, as long as there is a majority of those positions that are Canadian, that would be fine. But there isn’t any specific positions that you feel you absolutely need that position to be filled by a Canadian?

7755 MS. EDWARDS: Do you know what? I would like to get back to you on that, because I think I need some more clarity from our membership.

7756 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Maybe in your final submissions, please.

7757 MS. EDWARDS: Yes, thank you.

7758 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Please do provide as much detail as you can. It’s very helpful for us.

7759 MS. EDWARDS: Thank you.

7760 MR. PEELER: I would give the same answer; that it would be beneficial for me to take that back to our membership, because we have such a diverse membership that includes producers and unions and service providers.

7761 It would make more sense for me to share that at a later date.

7762 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON THÉBERGE: Thank you. I appreciate your answers.

7763 That’s all, Madam Chair. Thank you.

7764 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you so much. Let's go to Vice‑Chair Scott.

7765 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much.

7766 I wanted to ask a question really on the theme of how prescriptive our framework should be, because hearing you speak about regional storytelling, you spoke with the regions almost in a couple of different ways.

7767 So one in the sense of regional stories are stories that are told outside of the major production centres. So, that’s almost like a binary divide.

7768 But then I also heard you speaking about regional representation in the sense of kind of a fair share allocated across the country. So what’s the right level of ‑‑ when we come to designing the framework, what’s the right level of granularity that we need to engage in?

7769 Does there need to be a Manitoba allocation, an Alberta allocation, a PEI allocation, or can we just say you need to spend some of your money in regions outside the major production centres? How granular in detail should we be when we think about regional storytelling?

7770 MS. EDWARDS: That's a really great question. I worry that if we try to be too prescriptive, that we hamstring creativity. I like the idea of acknowledging regional content outside the centres, and that may be, again, the most flexible way. It's how we’re going to make that happen.

7771 You know, as with everything, if it gets too complicated and too detailed, it isn’t workable, and it is certainly not our intention to make this more difficult for anyone, including our collaborators in the broadcast system. I think recognition that there needs to be some regional representation, I think, would be a wonderful addition to the toolbox that you are going to provide.

7772 Thank you for that question. It’s important.

7773 MR. PEELER: Ditto. You made excellent points, and I agree with them completely. I don’t think we want to be too prescriptive because there’s a lot of that in our industry as it is. It’s stuff that we grapple with on a day‑to‑day basis, so it is, again, about finding that right balance, where we can support the work and the diversity of voices coming from the regions without creating a bunch more paperwork for everyone.

7774 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much. I appreciate that, and I’m sure others do as well.

7775 Thank you. That’s all I have to ask, Madam Chair.

7776 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much.

7777 Let's go to Commissioner Naidoo.

7778 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you so much for being here.

7779 Over the last couple of weeks, we’ve had a lot of discussions with people, and we’ve had some updates and some revelations and some things that people wanted to change about their submissions. And then you came right out of the starting gate, and you have a new name.

7780 So, I thought I would delve into that. So, it’s no longer the Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association. It’s now the Alberta Media Production Industries Association. Presumably, you put some thought into that, and I wondered why you changed the name.

7781 MS. EDWARDS: Just to be more reflective of the industry at large. We wanted to capture all of the different media and the different screens that people are telling their stories on.

7782 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Have you had any feedback or have you not had a chance to unveil it in front of everyone just yet prior to Banff?

7783 MS. EDWARDS: I no longer sit on the Board, so I am not able to tell you. I know that there was a lot of thought that went into that, and I believe it’s already out there. But we somehow missed it here.

7784 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Thank you. I was just curious. Thank you very much.

7785 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you very much.

7786 Now we would like to turn things back over to you to provide any concluding remarks.

7787 MR. PEELER: So we in Manitoba truly appreciate the time taken to study and consider and support the work that we do. What we do is collaborative, and the CRTC is our partner in doing what we do.

7788 In the Notice of Consultation, the Commission stated that a modernized definition of “Canadian programming” should support and incentivize the creation and distribution of diverse Canadian content in both official languages by diverse range of creators, including those from Indigenous and official language minority communities from equity deserving groups.

7789 Acknowledging and protecting contributions to Canadian content from the various regions of Canada, including Manitoba, achieves this goal. It is worth noting that all the example I mentioned of productions from Manitoba meet at least one of these goals, and in many cases more than one.

7790 Thank you for allowing me the honour of sharing the perspective of On Screen Manitoba and our members today.

7791 MS. EDWARDS: We are a nation of unique, diverse storytellers. In Alberta, we create stories that are welcomed by audiences at home and around the world.

7792 Today we have an opportunity to continue and also to adjust initiatives that have served us well so far ‑‑ initiatives that have grown our industry while preserving our culture. We also have the opportunity through these hearings to push towards a bright and prosperous future. We must ensure that we provide Canadians with stories from each region and territory, including from Alberta. We must look toward the future, work with our broadcast and streaming partners, as together we provide the most compelling and entertaining stories to what is now a global audience.

7793 In doing so, we must keep Canadian creators and storytellers at the forefront of these deliberations. Keep PNI and CPE as a commitment to ensure audiences see Canadian stories from all parts of this country. Be bold. Provide initiatives to develop and produce these programs, ensuring that Canadians see themselves and their neighbours reflected on these screens. In Alberta, we are ready to roll up our sleeves and help create these new opportunities.

7794 Thank you so much for allowing us the opportunity to present to you today.

7795 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for being here, and safe travels.

7796 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. We will now connect to Zoom, to our next participant, FilmOntario.

7797 Welcome.

7798 Thank you very much for being here. Please introduce yourselves, and you may begin.

Présentation

7799 MS. LYNCH: Good afternoon, and thank you for having us here today. My name is Cynthia Lynch, and I am the Managing Director of FilmOntario.

7800 We want to thank the CRTC for having us here today to elaborate on our written submission to this very crucial consultation.

7801 I would like to introduce my colleagues, Vanessa Steinmetz and Jayson Mosek, who are the Co‑Chairs of FilmOntario, to talk about who we are as an organization and why we think this conversation is so important right now.

7802 Over to you, Vanessa.

7803 MS. STEINMETZ: Thank‑you Cynthia.

7804 Good afternoon. My name is Vanessa Steinmetz and I am an independent producer with more than 20 years’ experience in the film and television industry. I have held senior roles in a large global studio headquartered in Ontario, and most recently I served as co‑CEO of an independent production company, where I was an executive producer on three Canadian domestic, half‑hour comedies: Late Bloomer for Crave, Don't Even for Crave and APTN, and Run the Burbs for CBC.

7805 I want to take a moment to tell you about FilmOntario and the role we play in the sector.

7806 FilmOntario is a not‑for‑profit and non‑partisan industry group with members from all parts of the province’s screen‑based industry. This includes unions, guilds, domestic and service producers, studios, equipment suppliers, and other support services. We advocate on behalf of the industry to all levels of government, and promote Ontario as a leading production jurisdiction. In short, we are the biggest cheerleaders for the screen industry in the province of Ontario.

7807 Of course, it’s easy to see the outputs of what we do. Whether you are a fan of Star Trek or Murdoch Mysteries, you may or may not be surprised to learn that many of your favourite scenes, lines, and on‑screen moments came to life in Ontario. We are so proud of the incredible content produced in the province, to be enjoyed by audiences around the world.

7808 We are even more proud of the people who make it all happen. There are about 45,000 people in Ontario who make their living in the film and television industry. That is equal to the entire population of Timmins.

7809 Film and television is an innovative, thriving part of Ontario’s economy. Thirty‑four per cent of Canada’s total production takes place here. In 2023, that was nearly two billion dollars of direct spending into the province’s economy. And we plan to grow. Premier Doug Ford has challenged our industry to grow to five billion in annual spending. We can do it, but only as long as all parts of our ecosystem remain healthy.

7810 This means continued investment in Ontario producers who create Canadian content, based on original IP, while ensuring Ontario remains a good partner to the studios and streamers who choose our province as a home for their productions. Because of our size, the health of Ontario’s industry is a bellwether for the health of the Canadian industry. Every bit of support helps.

7811 Thank you for providing us with this opportunity today, and I’ll pass it over to Jayson now.

7812 MR. MOSEK: Thank you, Vanessa.

7813 My name is Jayson Mosek. I am the Business Agent with NABET 700‑M UNIFOR, representing almost 3,000 technicians across the province of Ontario, working predominantly on domestic production which takes place here in the province.

7814 We are having this consultation at a critical time. Everyone will be well aware that President Trump’s threats to put tariffs on films created outside of the U.S. is a looming concern that would severely impact the health of our industry. This comes on top of a number of challenges in recent years ‑‑ the global pandemic, labour action, new platforms, and a changing economy for the industry.

7815 So, while the conversation we are having about defining “Canadian content” is a highly technical one, it is also landing during this historic moment of national pride and unity. We share the Commission’s intent to support and promote Canadian stories, to recognize the contributions of Canadian creators, and to foster a sustainable system where these creators can profit from their content. What we can also say for sure is that, like many of the strong, thriving industries in Canada, ours relies on a deep cooperation and collaboration with our friends and colleagues in the U.S.

7816 FilmOntario’s interest in this consultation is to ensure that no harm comes to this ecosystem. So, we equally appreciate the Commission’s recognition that we need to ensure a flexible ecosystem that supports and encourages a variety of productions and business models ‑‑ and, most importantly, protects jobs in Ontario and Canada. We want to see the entire Canadian system well‑positioned to build and grow, and at the cornerstone of English Canada’s audiovisual sector, the Canadian industry succeeds when FilmOntario’s members succeed.

7817 I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear today, and look forward to any questions you may have.

7818 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much. Thank you very much for your participation and thank you for being here with us virtually today.

7819 I will turn things over to my colleague, Commissioner Naidoo, to start the questioning for the Commission.

7820 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Hi, there. Thank you so much for appearing before us today. We really appreciate it.

7821 I wanted to start the questioning off with IP. In your view, how should the definition of a “Canadian program” balance IP ownership and contributions of Canadian creatives and personnel, and specifically, what type of IP ownership model could best ensure the Canadian‑ness of a production while also fostering international and domestic partnerships between independent producers, broadcasters, distributors?

7822 MS. LYNCH: Thank you for that, Commissioner. As Vanessa noted, our membership includes companies that benefit from all sorts of IP arrangements ‑‑ so, from those Canadian companies that would rely entirely on producing and monetizing their own IP. I believe you heard from Mark Montefiore of New Metric Media on Friday for an explanation of how well those producers can build their companies based on original IP.

7823 But we also have companies in Ontario that operate almost entirely on a service model, working with American and other non‑Canadian partners on some of the most popular and critically‑acclaimed global content. And then we have still others who do a little bit of both, producing their own IP and producing with partners where they may only own part or not any of the IP.

7824 I think that, since our membership represents such a diverse range of benefits, we don’t have a specific recommendation for a single IP model, but there should be enough flexibility in the system that, whatever new IP model is implemented, all Ontarians will be able to continue to benefit from the system.

7825 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right, thank you.

7826 And what types of business models do or do not require IP ownership, in your view, to succeed in a significant and equitable manner? But also, what types of business models do or don’t require IP ownership to succeed financially?

7827 MS. LYNCH: So, I think I will start, and then I will ask Vanessa to add a little bit of colour about domestic companies ‑‑ the specific kind of domestic company that owns their own IP, but there are two types of business models that don’t require complete IP ownership ‑‑ or three types, I guess.

7828 So, there is a service model, where a local producer may be engaged to produce on the ground in Ontario a production where the IP is owned in Hollywood or elsewhere. And then, we have co‑ventures, that don’t fall under an International Treaty Co‑Production Agreement but do involve a partnership between another country and Canada ‑‑ or, in some cases, another province and Ontario. We do a lot of interprovincial co‑production work as well.

7829 And then, there are of course the Treaty co‑production models where the terms of the IP ownership are negotiated under the Treaty by the Department of Canadian Heritage ‑‑ I’m sorry, I don’t have their new name at my fingertips ‑‑ and those follow the IP models that are set out in those Treaties.

7830 And then, finally, as I said, there are the domestic content producers like Vanessa has experience with, so she can talk about that IP model a bit.

7831 Go ahead, Vanessa.

7832 MS. STEINMETZ: Sure. Thank you. I think Mark Montefiore said it very well on Friday, just the type of model in terms of domestic ‑‑ you know, Canadian content, 10 out of 10, for example, productions where a hundred percent IP ownership rests with a Canadian production company. Really, the idea ‑‑ and you’ve heard it from so many throughout these proceedings ‑‑ the concept of retaining that allows for, at the outset, the strength in holding onto it so that, you know, as negotiations happen and financing is raised, you are able to, at the end of the day, have some rights, some exploitation opportunities to build your company and revenue to come back to Canada.

7833 So, you know, the way Cynthia set it out is so helpful because, like, there’s just so many layers to it, and we would say that some Ontario members are actively accessing all of those models.

7834 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you for that.

7835 I want to move now to PNI. You are aware the Commission’s preliminary view is that the current approach to PNI is no longer needed. You suggest in your intervention the CPE framework should require direct expenditures on each of the categories of programming, as appropriate, you state, for the undertaking.

7836 So, I’m wondering how would you assess what expenditures, at what level, are appropriate for each undertaking? And how would this model consider future changes in programming strategies?

7837 MS. LYNCH: So, again, we will say that we do have many different members, who have a variety of views and business models and perspectives, and in particular, on this issue, and I know that you’ve heard a lot of them. So, our perspective is focussed on the overall health of the industry and making sure that there is enough flexibility in that ecosystem that allows everyone to thrive.

7838 So, I think in our written submission we used the example of a service that was focussed on documentary would have the bulk of their CPE directed towards supporting documentary programming ‑‑ this makes sense to us ‑‑ in terms of satisfying their audiences, and while still ensuring that money goes to those types of productions that need it, including documentary, long‑form documentaries, drama, feature films, as well as Canadian children’s programming.

7839 But it does make sense to us that not every service should be required to support every type of programming. CPE could be focussed on, on a category‑by‑category basis. And we don’t have a specific number in mind for each of those services, and we expect that there would be a need to revisit them frequently, as the global environment continues to change and Canada strives to keep with that environment.

7840 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you for that.

7841 Let's move to CPE. You touched a little bit on that topic. In paragraph 36 of your intervention, you state that ‑‑ and I’m just going to read the quotation:

“Traditional Canadian broadcasters also continue to benefit from regulatory protections that are not available to foreign online undertakings, and should therefore have spending obligations that are commensurate with their place in the system.”

7842 So, I am wondering if you can expand on those regulatory protections, and how they impact your views on what CPE requirements, if any, should be imposed on Canadian and also foreign undertakings?

7843 MS. LYNCH: Thank you for that. I think that what we were referring to in terms of some of the regulatory protections that Canadian broadcasters enjoy include Canadian ownership protections, simultaneous substitution rules, in some cases mandatory carriage ‑‑ so, rules to that effect. And so, they benefit a bit more from regulatory protection from the system, and we feel that their CPE requirements should be commensurate with the protection that they enjoy or are afforded under the system.

7844 I think that that is not to say that online services shouldn’t contribute to the system. I think that we just were trying to say that, when you are thinking about equitable contributions to the system, you should be looking at both the obligations as well as the protections under the current system.

7845 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you for that.

7846 All right. Let's move to data confidentiality. So, I’m wondering what FilmOntario’s thoughts are on data transparency and confidentiality? And what is the public policy good of allowing data transparency, in your view?

7847 MS. LYNCH: Well, the public policy goal of allowing data transparency, just from an organization like mine, it just gives us the ability to evaluate and look at whether the policies are working in the way they thought they were working, to see if unintended consequences are arising, and allow us to sort of both adjust our businesses but also adjust our policy recommendations based on what is happening in the marketplace.

7848 You will note that we had 2023 numbers in our submission. We are still waiting for the release of 2024 production stats. We are hoping to have them any day, but that is just the type of timely information that’s very beneficial to us and for other small not‑for‑profit organizations like ours.

7849 In terms of privacy, we would never want to see any of the companies that we do business with put their business operations at risk. We are also conscious of over‑reporting. And then, I think that some intervenors have talked about personal identifying information which I think we noted in our submission, there are organizations that do that and do it in a way that protects privacy, including CMF. So, we would encourage the continued use of one system or similar systems across the board when it comes to personal identity identification.

7850 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: All right. Thank you.

7851 In your submission, you also state that only information required to measure the Commission’s performance measures should be collected, including from existing sources of information where possible.

7852 So, with reference to that, I am wondering what existing sources of information are you contemplating? And what metrics would you propose be measured? And if you could comment on the benefit of having this information as a public policy outcome, as well?

7853 MS. LYNCH: So, I noticed the intervenors before us made the plea for simplicity in data collection, and we would echo that same plea. So, the CMF’s, as I mentioned already, personal identity collection method is one method that I think that, if we could share information across government agencies or private public partnerships, would be beneficial and would keep the administrative burden on both producers and companies, funders, and the Commission to a minimum.

7854 And the other areas where it could come in helpful is individual provinces’ or regions’ production statistics. As I mentioned, those are already available.

7855 I think just collaboration on those types of outcome‑based data is helpful and would simplify the system overall. It would also, from a policy perspective, make sure that we are all comparing apples to apples and not trying to compare two different methodologies and two different ways of collecting data when we’re trying to compare, for example, jurisdictions or support of productions from Indigenous groups, as an example.

7856 COMMISSIONER NAIDOO: Those are all my questions. Thank you very much.

7857 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

7858 And I will turn things over to Commissioner Paquette.

7859 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Hello. I would like to bring you back on the subject of IP and the need for flexibility in the definition. You mentioned that independent producers should be able to make deals and partnerships based on what is best for this business. Many intervenors pleaded that a stronger and less‑flexible definition represents a form of guardrail and protection when they negotiate at the international leave with big companies.

7860 Can you comment on this?

7861 MS. LYNCH: Indeed. We have been listening to you. The concept of guardrails is an interesting one, and we would argue that there are already some guardrails in the system, outside of the CRTC’s CanCon definition. So, for example, to speak of the province I know best, in the Ontario Tax Credit for domestic content, there is a requirement that you own the IP for a significant amount of time. So, that does help those producers when they’re entering the marketplace, to engage in those negotiations.

7862 And I think that those types of guardrails can work in concert with CRTC policies to ensure that there is protection for Canadian producers but there is still flexibility ‑‑ the type of flexibility that will make us an attractive jurisdiction.

7863 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: So, I understand you are saying the guardrails don’t have to be at the level of the definition; they can be somewhere else in the ecosystem?

7864 MS. LYNCH: Correct.

7865 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay.

7866 And some other intervenors mentioned that the definition right now is flexible enough to foster partnerships ‑‑ that we don’t need a more flexible definition. Can you also comment on this?

7867 MS. LYNCH: So, I think it’s true that we are very successful at making partnerships already, and we are very proud of those partnerships. But I think when it comes to things like the number of points, or when we were talking about key creative positions, we did note that allowing a greater number of points under that system would allow for greater flexibility. It would also recognize the important role that some of our behind‑the‑scenes members play in bringing the stories to the screen.

7868 We did also say ‑‑ and I’m sorry if I am spoiling a question to come, but we did also say that whatever the number of creative positions that the Commission lands on, at least 60 percent of those positions should be filled by Canadians, and that is important to us both in terms of creative control and as well as the employment opportunities that it brings to Canadian creatives, especially in Ontario, of course.

7869 COMMISSIONER PAQUETTE: Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.

7870 No more questions.

7871 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you so much.

7872 Let’s go to Vice‑Chair Scott.

7873 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thank you. And you almost spoiled my question, but not quite. So, I did want to ask, more from an industrial policy perspective as opposed to a cultural perspective per se, would the industry benefit more from a smaller number of 10 out of 10 productions, or a relatively larger number of 6 out of 10 productions?

7874 MS. LYNCH: That’s a very difficult question. Thank you.

7875 I will turn to Jayson to maybe deal with some of the labour implications of that, but I think from in terms of Canadian content perspective, there does need to be room for both, and I’m not sure what the exact perfect proportion is. I know that what we are concerned with is the jobs and the investment coming back into the province of Ontario and to Canada as a whole.

7876 So, 10 out of 10 productions have been extremely successful, and some of the best Ontario shows are 10 out of 10 productions, but I think some of that flexibility that allows maybe someone else to come in to provide a new outlook or a specific talent that’s lacking in our system is also beneficial.

7877 So, Jayson, I don’t know if you wanted to add to that from a labour point of view?

7878 MR. MOSEK: I would just echo exactly what Cynthia said ‑‑ that anything that could be done to obviously increase employment opportunities for Canadians on these productions, obviously 10 out of 10, fantastic, but, you know, 6 out of 10 as well ‑‑ I mean, anything that grows the ecosystem and the kind of piece of the pie, if you will, and provides more employment opportunities to ‑‑ in the case of FilmOntario ‑‑ Ontarians is really the ideal goal of this.

7879 VICE‑CHAIRPERSON SCOTT: Thanks very much.

7880 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, and thank you for the discussion and for answering our questions. We would like to turn things back over to you for any concluding thoughts.

7881 MS. LYNCH: Thank you very much, and thank you for your insightful and sometimes difficult questions today.

7882 We appreciate the opportunity to appear on behalf of our members, and, as I mentioned, we know many of them have been here over the last couple of weeks. Our members are a diverse group and as you have heard, they have brought their very specific ideas and concerns to this consultation process.

7883 I am sure what’s very clear to you is that there is no one silver bullet that is going to ensure the success of the industry across the board. Rather, it takes the same kind of creativity, innovation, and smart thinking that the people who work in Canadian film and television bring to their jobs every day.

7884 Our goal, as always, is to support our members and to support the health of the whole film and television ecosystem here in Canada and, particularly, in Ontario.

7885 We thank you for the opportunity, and we thank you for listening.

7886 THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you so much for joining us today.

7887 THE SECRETARY: Thank you. This concludes today's hearing. We will be back tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.

‑‑‑ L'audience est ajournée à 14 h 14 pour reprendre le mardi 27 mai 2025 à 9 h 00

Sténographes
Deana Johansson
Monique Mahoney
Lynda Johansson
Tania Mahoney
Brian Denton